J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tempest

New Member
Registered Member
phrozenflame said:
Accuracy is a continuum. Also, now it seems that a few here have the pursuit to not find the facts but to hide and blur them.
Click to expand...
No, accuracy is binary. You are either correct or incorrect. When it comes to radar theory and sensor modeling, there are a myriad of factors that are near impossible to model without access to detailed technical specifications of what you're modeling. RAM placement, thickness, absorption profile, etc. all have massive follow on effects to the signature. Applique RAM in a crucial spot can reduce "bounces" (or any of the many types of return) that would normally have interfered (be it constructively or destructively) with other returns.

The system is ludicrously sensitive to the initial conditions, and any slight nudge in any direction other than "exactly correct" yields you zero useful data. In fact, it can be actively misleading to give any credence to such models.
 
phrozenflame

phrozenflame

Junior Member
Registered Member
Tempest said:
No, accuracy is binary. You are either correct or incorrect. When it comes to radar theory and sensor modeling, there are a myriad of factors that are near impossible to model without access to detailed technical specifications of what you're modeling. RAM placement, thickness, absorption profile, etc. all have massive follow on effects to the signature. Applique RAM in a crucial spot can reduce "bounces" (or any of the many types of return) that would normally have interfered (be it constructively or destructively) with other returns.

The system is ludicrously sensitive to the initial conditions, and any slight nudge in any direction other than "exactly correct" yields you zero useful data. In fact, it can be actively misleading to give any credence to such models.
Click to expand...
Accuracy is a continuum, not binary. You do what you can with the public information in public sphere. RAM issue has been talked about in the article.
 
Schwerter_

Schwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
My 2 cents: the (somewhat) famous saying goes: All models are wrong, but some are useful. Notice it says some are useful, not all. In the case of this analysis its topic is radar reflectivity which is heavily affected by the geometry and detail treatment of the object. If the model used in the analysis itself has multiple macroscopic differences (shape of canopy, strake design, etc) to the real-life object that’s distinguishable using the naked eye then there’s just too high a possibility that these inaccuracies will bring enough “noise” into the system that the results get effectively meaningless. This may be the case, this may not be, we just don’t know.

And since we don’t know how inaccurate this analysis is, it’d be irresponsible and borderline stupid imo to treat its result as an even partly reliable source, just because “there’s no better alternative”. Not to discredit the author’s efforts or anything, just that no good information on a subject doesn’t mean anything is necessarily an improvement.
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
It's getting personal because the last five page of a flagship thread (if not the flagship thread) are being wasted on this meaningless back and forth. The model is useless and further discussion of it is also useless. Enough already.
Click to expand...


Exactly, and this post - with which I can only agree - ends this discussion. All arguments are on the table, and anyone can decide on if this model is exact enough to result in an accurate RCS-analysis or not; IMO clearly NOT.
 
4Runner

4Runner

Junior Member
Registered Member

[Comments]
Just post this video here for reference, not sure if what Fu Qian Shao said is correct or not. He said PLAAF has over 150 J20 as of now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top