Morals were never mentioned. Im simply pointing out that shortcuts can stifle innovation, and problem solving.
When Lockheed faced the F-35B being overweight, they offered cash incentives to innovate. The Chinese would offer cash incentives to cheat, and copy a design. One of those alternatives breeds multiple solutions. The other breeds solutions but youll always come running back to the well, because you didn’t father it, and are now dependant on it.
Do we have exceptions to the rules yes?
But ive been in organizations before where cheating was an easy out. Trust me if your organization is bad enough to cheat, then they will cheat on hiring, firing, promotion ect. Its called discipline, not morals.

Oh dear, me thinks one needs a history lesson:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-26/china-didn-t-invent-industrial-espionage

…whereas other critical tech can simply be bought:

http://electroiq.com/insights-from-leading-edge/2015/09/iftle-253-china-inc-seeks-to-acquire-gf-tessera-acquires-ziptronix-tezzaron-8-layer-3dic/

If you didn’t know already, development of military engines in particular is somewhat of a ‘black art’ and is a rare example in engineering where pedigree is required.

Anyways, let’s see what “cash incentives to innovate” the USAF & USSPACECOM offer to have the RD-180 reverse engineered by 2021.

that mean little without knowing altitude, fuel load and weapons load, a slow aircraft at low altitude can turn much faster ( much higher turn rate) with far less G needed compare to something that moving high and fast

What sort of friggin’ planet do you come from? For example for a given wing loading of, say, 50lbs/ft^2 a fighter’s structural design load limit of (say) just over 7g can be realised up to an altitude of ~15k ft; after which, the maximum lift capability of the wing limits the allowable load factor until only 2.5g can be achieved at 40k ft.

If the fighter has a significant fuel & ordinance load then high-altitude g limits are further compromised as the lift vector further struggles to equal the sum of the weight and centrifugal force vectors. The F-35 is particularly susceptible because it has a highly loaded wing by design. Which means the G limits implemented on the F-35 are for low-medium altitude.

I’ll put it in baby speak: high altitude = berry baàaad G; medium altitude = not bad G; low altitude = berry goooood G. Savvy?

dont try to bend my words Sakura.
i didn’t said L band isn’t effective again stealth, in fact i even said Stealth is less effective at low frequency, however, low frequency isn’t magic, the F-22 won’t suddenly have RCS of 10000 m2 at L band like you suggested, anyway that belong to another topic, let not derail this one

Oh bend your words?!! Where did I state that? All I did was agree with the study that:

Since the RAM are not so effective against UHF and VHF frequencies, it is possible to see that around 200 MHz and 600 MHz the computed frontal RCS [of the F-22] lies in the average range of 20 dBsm.

…but if you’re right that the F-22 has a -30dBsm signature even in the low bands, then the Israelis have been wasting their time & money then, huh?:

http://m.aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2015/iai-unveils-uhf-radar-tracks-stealth
http://defense-update.com/20150607_ultra_radar.html#.Ve129lRwbMI

Note key words: ‘TRACK’, ‘STEALTH’ and ‘hundreds of kilometres’.

To supercruise at mach 1.8 and have top speed of mach2.8 like ins suggests, J-20 would need very different intake from the one it have now

Where did Inst say supercruise @ M1.8 and topline @ M2.8? More schoolyard slander?

Andraxxus, the AL-31FN series-3 exported to the PRC and most likely installed on the J-20 has a 10% increase in thrust over the AL-31FN. This gives 134.8kN – still woefully short, but nevertheless.

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=2432

Having said that, nobody outside the project actually truly knows what engines are installed. It’s not inconceivable AL-31F-M2s found their way onto the J-20 given their availability for nearly a decade and Salyut’s good business relationship with the Chinese. The M2’s would give 142kN.

Where i can read more about this ?

This is the point which does not make sense to me. Are you saying that when the ESM detects something… the Interrogator array will then point its beam there.. Emit and then wait for reply ?

Well the IFF array doesn’t have to be that big for the starters. Thus i think there won’t be any problem embedding them into the main array as the earlier Russian ESA’s.

So i think the L-band array is able to do something more.

By very definition the L-band AESA would be able to digital beam-form, the kret link above hints at such a capability (in bad English) and so does its Western contemporary:

the fact that the IFF is separate allows it to work in close conjunction with other sensors, such as infrared search-and-track and electronic support measures.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2012-07-08/selex-galileo-leads-europes-e-scan-drive

according to the simulation you posted, F-22 will have RCS around 40 dBsm at 1 Ghz…
…my point is the simulation is inaccurate

Actually, @ 1GHz the value is around 18dBsm, the 40dBsm spike you refer to is entirely due to:

The frequency gap of 1 to 2GHz was not analyzed since the computational resources demanded by the transient solver would be too large.

…but you’d know that if you’d actually read the document. The actual 1GHz value is around 10dB higher than the 18dB difference between L & X band stated in the text book. So if the F-22’s RAM could take 10dB off its low wave band signature – that would be a considerable achievement, but this would be unlikely (imho).

I’m curious, what’s upset you more – the results of the simulation? Or I didn’t quote the easily derided Carlo Kopp?

Also, I question the validity of the one sole quote (which you cling to) from defenseindustrydaily.com which actually states E-3 and E-2C “struggled” to detect the F-22. This is very different to what you’re saying:

…unfortunately it wasn’t even able to detect F-22 in reality,

Do you have any other sources? You’d think such an achievement in capability would be widely reported, in the specialist press at least.

You see, Monsieur eloise, the baying mob over on f16.net may lap-up your reams and reams of ‘RCS 101’ but here we are more circumspect. We are more inclined to trust the words of actual eminent industry professionals such as Edward Lovick Jr et al and welcome reputable independent studies.

Also when people say the N036L-1-01 ( L band slat array on Su-35 PAK-FA ) can be used to counter stealth aircraft…

Well, you should ignore those people:

http://kret.com/en/news/3527/

I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s very difficult to *debate* with someone when the very foundations of their argument are often proved factually incorrect and are sometimes nonsensical.

my question however is : if F-22 ( and others stealth fighter ) have average frontal RCS of 20 dBsm at frequency from 0.2-0.8 Ghz, then why in real exercise AWACS cant detect them?, why BAE have to mentioned about the position of AWACS in their simulation ?

THAT’S BECAUSE E-3 SURVEILLANCE RADAR OPERATES IN S-BAND (E-F BAND), SHEEEESH!!!:

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/awacsapy2/documents/awacs.pdf&ved=0CCkQFjADahUKEwjDrfzvl93HAhUJOdsKHZceAi8&usg=AFQjCNFGhb-i0VLT5eiqNyIBeYFL9kxegQ&sig2=FGCz4GMIAayYeD_uJqnQfQ

Let’s try computational electromagnetic simulation of an F-22, shall we?……….’oh oh spaghettios’!!:

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ijrame.com/vol2issue1/V2i105.pdf&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwjfnubq59vHAhVEPhQKHTTlDeU&usg=AFQjCNGlPzhSPjv-SAVP3qsUUTChB4OvGg&sig2=3ptES2xxLChWF76-OhN5vQ

That is a 1993 book so I doubt they had any reliable info on VLO practices, especially constant curvature.

Keep in mind that the above graph is based on predictive software and the book was based off of a simple formula.

Ermmm……second edition 2004, and the cover illustration is an RCS plot of a B2:

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=j7hdXhgwws4C&source=gbs_book_similarbooks

There is also great detail on the design and employment of indoor and outdoor test ranges for scale models or for full-scale targets (such as aircraft).*

In essence, this book covers everything you need to know about RCS, from what it is, how to predict and measure, how to test targets (indoors and out) and how to beat it.

I don’t see anything “simple” about it, though granted it probably precedes CNT RAM. The latter is not relevant anyways as the CNT composite would have to be the same width as an elephant to be effective against L-band.