Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[j20blackdragon]

DSI and no more canards.

Not much left to criticize now.

 

[gambit]

DSI and no more canards.

Why not? Did they learned something?

Not much left to criticize now.

Sure. Looks like an F-35

 

[Martian2]

Why not? Did they learned something?

Sure. Looks like an F-35

Only a neophyte would claim the SAIC plane looks like a F-35. The Chinese plane is a twin-engine fighter. Go look at pictures of the F-35, it has a single engine. Their missions are completely different.

The Chinese twin-engine plane is designed as a multirole combat fighter. The F-35 was designed primarily as a strike aircraft. Anyone who is familiar with the F-35 would know its history.

Furthermore, the F-35 has had numerous ad-hoc changes to make it more survivable with the development of the J-20 Mighty Dragon. The F-35 has been given a gun, which creates a non-stealthy bump above the pilot's port-side airduct.

Also, the underside of the F-35 has been completely ruined. The weapons payload bay has been expanded to accommodate air-to-air missiles and larger bombs. The F-35 underside is not stealthy anymore (see Australia Air Power citation; link: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html).

All of the ad hoc changes and non-stealthy F-35 problems do not exist on the SAIC clean-sheet design. These two fighters are not alike at all.

 

[gambit]

Only a neophyte would claim the SAIC plane looks like a F-35. The Chinese plane is a twin-engine fighter. Go look at pictures of the F-35, it has a single engine. Their missions are completely different.

The Chinese twin-engine plane is designed as a multi-role combat fighter. The F-35 was designed primarily a a strike fighter. Anyone who is familiar with the F-35 would know its history.

Me a neophyte? You learned more from me than you could ever repay in kind, kid. Twin engined or not, it looks like the overall shape is lifted from the F-35. The reason why the F-35 is single-engined is because of the requirement for VTOL.

 

[sms]

DSI and no more canards.

Not much left to criticize now.

Looks good better than J20.

Going by Martin's logic..it's not stealth fighter because Chinese designers forget to put saw tooth panels.

 

[gambit]

Looks good better than J20.

Going by Martin's logic..it's not stealth fighter as cause Chinese designers forget to put saw tooth panels.

The man will come up with some version of 'Chinese physics' to say something about 'stealth'.

 

[Martian2]

Me a neophyte? You learned more from me than you could ever repay in kind, kid. Twin engined or not, it looks like the overall shape is lifted from the F-35. The reason why the F-35 is single-engined is because of the requirement for VTOL.

Stop saying stupid things and I won't have to correct you.

Otherwise, you'll mislead all of the forum readers. They'll leave the thread and think the SAIC twin-engine multirole combat fighter is similar to the F-35 single-engine strike aircraft with a ruined underside.

I had to go to the trouble of correcting your nonsense and find the citation to prove it.

 

[gambit]

Furthermore, the F-35 has had numerous ad-hoc changes to make it more survivable with the development of the J-20 Mighty Dragon. The F-35 has been given a gun, which creates a non-stealthy bump above the pilot's port-side airduct.

Also, the underside of the F-35 has been completely ruined. The weapons payload bay has been expanded to accommodate air-to-air weapons and larger bombs. The F-35 underside is not stealthy anymore (see Australia Air Power citation; link: Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities).

I would think that by now, after all the explanations I have given about RCS measurements and their pitfalls, you would know better than to take someone's opinion as gospel. The difference between you and I is that I am more honest than you are about this matter. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' DO NOT raise the aircraft above a certain threshold, those 'lumps and bumps' DO NOT matter. It really is amazing that you consistently failed to understand this -- threshold.

---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------

Stop saying stupid things and I won't have to correct you. Otherwise, you'll mislead all of the forum readers. They'll leave the thread and think the SAIC twin-engine multirole combat fighter is similar to the F-35 single engine strike aircraft with a ruined underside.

You have yet to 'correct' me on anything. You have never corrected me on anything. It is YOU who have been misleading the interested readers here and am willing to put my arguments against yours any day.

 

[sms]

@ Dear Martian, Please analyze following pictures and enlighten us about stealth deficiencies in this design ...regards.

 

[pakje]

why is everyone taking this model so seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if SAC were trolling you all

 

[Martian2]

@ Dear Martian, Please analyze following pictures and enlighten us about stealth deficiencies in this design ...regards.

Sukhoi hasn't fixed a single stealth design problem in two years.

China's SAIC stealth design is far superior to the deficiencies-ridden Russian T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype.

The first thing you notice is that the SAIC stealth fighter has a frameless bubble cockpit canopy. For stealth, this is superior to the radar-reflecting metal-framed cockpit canopy on the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype.

You will also notice the SAIC fighter has gold-colored RAM on the cockpit canopy. After two years, Sukhoi has failed to show a single picture of the T-50/Pak-Fa with gold-colored transparent RAM.

Thirdly, the SAIC design is superior to the Sukhoi T-50/Pak-Fa, because the Chinese fighter does not have a radar-reflecting protruding IRST.

Unlike the T-50/Pak-Fa, the fuselage area behind the cockpit drops off quickly to meld into the main fuselage. This means greater stealth, because less radar energy will be reflected from a side illumination.

Fourthly, SAIC incorporated a S-duct design to hide the engine fan blades.

China's SAIC stealth fighter has a S-duct design to hide the radar reflections from the engine fan blades. This is far superior to the straight and non-stealth air-inlet for the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype. I have drawn the airflow properly to properly wrap around the advanced DSI inlet on the SAIC fighter.

 

[gambit]

Thirdly, the SAIC design is superior to the Sukhoi T-50/Pak-Fa, because the Chinese fighter does not have a radar-reflecting protruding IRST.

This argument is completely wrong. Not because the IRST device structure is not radar reflecting. It is. But your argument is wrong on a more fundamental issue -- threshold -- which apparently you do not understand.

 

[Martian2]

This argument is completely wrong. Not because the IRST device structure is not radar reflecting. It is. But your argument is wrong on a more fundamental issue -- threshold -- which apparently you do not understand.

You're clueless.

X-band radar can easily see the "large" IRST probe. X-band wavelength is 2.5 to 4 cm.

Are you arguing the IRST probe is much smaller than 2.5 (one inch) to 4 cm?

 

[gambit]

You're clueless.

X-band radar can easily see the "large" IRST probe. X-band wavelength is 2.5 to 4 cm.

Are you arguing the IRST probe is smaller than 4 cm?

No...It is YOU who are clueless. Just about 99.999% of surface structures on any aircraft, including the F-117, F-22, and the J-20, is larger than a single X-band pulse.

Every surface structure is legitimately a 'SURFACE DISCONTINUITY' and that include the T-50's IRST device structure.

So take a look at this...

How many 'surface discontinuities' do you see there? And yet the F-117 set the initial standard for 'stealth'. In fact, the F-117 produces far more 'surface discontinuities' than the F-22 and B-2 COMBINED.

Do you now see how wrong is the IRST argument?

 

[Martian2]

No...It is YOU who are clueless. Just about 99.999% of surface structures on any aircraft, including the F-117, F-22, and the J-20, is larger than a single X-band pulse.

Every surface structure is legitimately a 'SURFACE DISCONTINUITY' and that include the T-50's IRST device structure.

So take a look at this...

How many 'surface discontinuities' do you see there? And yet the F-117 set the initial standard for 'stealth'. In fact, the F-117 produces far more 'surface discontinuities' than the F-22 and B-2 COMBINED.

Do you now see how wrong is the IRST argument?

You're telling me you can't see the saw-toothed edges on the F-117? Does the T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe look like a giant radar-reflecting globe to you or a two-dimensional saw-toothed edge?

I swear, your eyes are terrible. The T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is about the size of a pilot's head. What do you think will happen to a plane's radar signature when you stick a pilot's helmet on the plane's nose (like an IRST probe)? That's right. It's a giant radar reflector. You really are totally clueless.