What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

antonius123 - you are logging ...but not answering my query. Evading my question goes against your reputation and put lots of question mark on your intensions to be on this form. Hope you are not an usual troll.

My aviation background is my study.
I never claim I have field experience or pilot experience or aviation engineering experience from the beginning. Dont try to twist again.

It is you that claim as ex pilot and aviation expert.
Prove me if I've ever claim I am an expert.

I am not an expert, but have adequate and genuine background to expose the fraud and fake claim that you have made.

I have answered you that I have no classified information regarding J-20 as per your request.

I am in a middle of project that I have no time to do some research in order to answer your questions; You may see me logged in (because I am indeed log in on my tablet) but I cannot follow intensely your debata at the moment.

I am replying and straightening a lot of misconception on your friend's claims, not trolling. The only troller here might be you.

Why dont you ask to "our expert" Mr. Gambit and chase him for the precise answer? :laugh:

Dear antonius123,
Your reply proves that you are not expert but an armature hobbyist (I doubt it because hobbyist have good understanding of subject) pretending to be an expert. My question is very simple and you do not need to do too much research to provide the basic concept.

Dear Gambit,
Alas, my reliable (self assumed) source/ reference on engg. proved to be an great troll. We need your help to answer the following question.


Ok let me rephrase my question....
To emit and receive reflected signals the nose cone should be made of EM wave transparent material so that it's radar (transceiver) can emit and receive signals effectively to detect and track threats.

But being EM transparent it posses another problem ..it exposes it's radar assy, other instruments and lots of other things (in layman's term) placed between radar and Pilot. All of these will reflect lot of EM waves back to enemy radars and defy purpose of LO aircraft. How does engineers hide radar and other instruments without compromising it's own radar detection capabilities?
 
.
Dear Gambit,
Alas, my reliable (self assumed) source/ reference on engg. proved to be an great troll. We need your help to answer the following question.
Ok let me rephrase my question....
To emit and receive reflected signals the nose cone should be made of EM wave transparent material so that it's radar (transceiver) can emit and receive signals effectively to detect and track threats.

But being EM transparent it posses another problem ..it exposes it's radar assy, other instruments and lots of other things (in layman's term) placed between radar and Pilot. All of these will reflect lot of EM waves back to enemy radars and defy purpose of LO aircraft. How does engineers hide radar and other instruments without compromising it's own radar detection capabilities?
It is interesting that he 'angled' his answer to be of the J-20 when the problem is common to every aircraft. Not sure what his 'angle' is here. :lol:
 
.
Dear antonius123,
Your reply proves that you are not expert but an armature hobbyist (I doubt it because hobbyist have good understanding of subject) pretending to be an expert. My question is very simple and you do not need to do too much research to provide the basic concept.

Dear Gambit,
Alas, my reliable (self assumed) source/ reference on engg. proved to be an great troll. We need your help to answer the following question.

I've told you I never claim I am an expert you idiot ...

But my background and knowledge are adequate to expose faked expert claimed by your friends :laugh:

You are the troller.

Let see the explanation from your friend the self claimed expert :laugh:
 
.
I've told you I never claim I am an expert you idiot ...

But my background and knowledge are adequate to expose faked expert claimed by your friends :laugh:

You are the troller.

Let see our the explanation from your friend the self claimed expert :laugh:
But you claimed 'aviation background' to shut the Indians up. So you should have no problems at all -- AT ALL -- in answering his question, which is how does one preserve low radar observability when a radome must be EM transparent?

By the way, as someone who 'studied' aerospace engineering, as you claimed to be, what is 'CNI'?
 
.
But you claimed 'aviation background' to shut the Indians up. So you should have no problems at all -- AT ALL -- in answering his question, which is how does one preserve low radar observability when a radome must be EM transparent?

By the way, as someone who 'studied' aerospace engineering, as you claimed to be, what is 'CNI'?

Why should you test me and I follow your game?
Should I test you again? oh... but you have failed with a lot of your misconceptions :laugh:

In fact you haven't been able to response a lot of my challenges, but expect other people to response to your challenge. You are shameless.
 
.
Why should you test me and I follow your game?
Should I test you again? oh... but you have failed with a lot of your misconceptions :laugh:

In fact you haven't been able to response a lot of my challenges, but expect other people to response to your challenge. You are shameless.
Right...So you do not know how would a low radar observable aircraft maintain that level despite the radome being EM transparent. Clue for you, the clueless: The answer is aplenty in this forum.

By the way, the initials 'CNI' stands for: Communication, Navigation, and Identification.

So much for your 'study' in aerospace engineering. And if you do not why CNI is crucial in the area you supposedly claimed to have studied, all the more reasons why we should see you as a fraud.
 
.
Right...So you do not know how would a low radar observable aircraft maintain that level despite the radome being EM transparent. Clue for you, the clueless: The answer is aplenty in this forum.

By the way, the initials 'CNI' stands for: Communication, Navigation, and Identification.

So much for your 'study' in aerospace engineering. And if you do not why CNI is crucial in the area you supposedly claimed to have studied, all the more reasons why we should see you as a fraud.

I doubt if he even knows or recognises that it is a two fold problem ..

he just goes off the topic ever which way..
 
.
Can we come back to a technical discussion if the whole girly fight is over??

From the intelligent to the semi-intelligent posts it seems that the J-20 is a compromise if there was ever a word.
But compromise to what role? HVAA interceptor? Stand off weapon equipped penetrator?
 
.
Some thoughts from another forum, not saying it means anything definitive, just throwing it out there...

The Chinese have always copied Soviet/Russian aircraft, and used similar combat philosophies in design and deployment. The Russians have had an ongoing string of gigantic aircraft designed for long-range, high-altitude defense and interception to protect their vast length of border. China is a large nation, but nowhere near as large as the Soviet Union, or even modern Russia. So why the need for a big, long-range defense fighter, possibly with very high altitude capabilities?

I think the primary potential adversary that China worries about is the U.S., possibly in combination with other western powers and some local nations that allies of the U.S. China's air force has some more modern aircraft, but they would mostly not fare well against a mixed force of F-22s and F-35s, backed up with a whole lot of earlier generation fighters. In addition, many Chinese airbases are within a hundred miles of the coast, and are quite vulnerable to cruise missile strikes. If China based most of their forces forward near the coast, the attrition rate would be very high and very rapid.

The Chinese are not stupid, and I think they have a different strategy in mind. If they created bands of dense and sophisticated, redundant SAM defenses, that would be tough for an attacking force to deal with. SEAD planes and drones would go for active RADARs, which could be real or decoys. The Chinese would activate other RADARs and launch SAMs only when attacking planes were overhead. But SAMs are not enough by themselves. Airbases farther inland could host conventional aircraft to harry attacking aircraft with long range AAMs as they are trying to deal with the SAMs. Other conventional aircraft would be tasked with using their look down/shoot down RADARs to intercept air- and sea-launched cruise missiles. Far inland in well-protected airbases, J-20s could be operated in relative safety, behind the multiple bands of defenses. They would have the range to fly defensive missions from their safe deep inland bases out beyond China's coast, and attack the most vital assets; as has been said, the AWACs, P-8s hunting Chinese subs and tanker aircraft. If those assets can be sufficiently degraded, attacking into Chinese territory becomes much more difficult. I would be looking for word of development of a Chinese copy of or long-range AAM similar to the Russian Vympel R-33 missile. A longer-range version of the Pl-21 AAM might fit the bill.

In addition, in the tradition of high-altitude Soviet/Russian interceptors like the MiG-25 and -31, the J-20 coming out to meet an incoming attack force could be a formidable adversary. With its LO design, it would be difficult to spot. I would bet it also has an LPI RADAR. If, like the two aircraft mentioned, it carried large, long-range missiles, it could move in on an attacking American force, fire from 20-30k feet above the attacking force at a distance of over 100 miles, then turn and escape easily after disrupting the attack. Another flight of J-20s could come in a ways behind the first to break up the attacking aircraft again if they reformed after the first missile barrage. This would be a very difficult defense tactic to overcome.

This is all pure speculation, of course, but it seems to be a viable strategy. One other factor that makes this even more likely is that China was going to purchase some MiG-31s from Russia, as they were reportedly very impressed with their capabilities. It would not surprise me at all to see similar capabilities designed into the J-20.
 
.
Can we come back to a technical discussion if the whole girly fight is over??

From the intelligent to the semi-intelligent posts it seems that the J-20 is a compromise if there was ever a word.
But compromise to what role? HVAA interceptor? Stand off weapon equipped penetrator?

I think we are pretty much on topic.
Let me explain.
although I do appreciate the fact that you are trying (and are obliged even) to keep the thread on track, you must realize that talking about technical achievements in or around a given field, one must not allow irrelevant, ignorant and dubious opinions and claims.

Military aviation is not an insignificant matter where claims can simply go unsupported.


coming to you assumption / question, without taking away any of the achievement merit.. I don't think the J-20 is designed to be something in particular.

My assumption (and that is what it is) and I have stated it before, is that the J-20 is an evolution of the MiG-1.44, to be more precise a stealthified evolution of the MiG-1.44, and hence it's size comes from the "stealthification" process, not a particular design goal.

that's my 2p to your question.
 
.
I think we are pretty much on topic.
Let me explain.
although I do appreciate the fact that you are trying (and are obliged even) to keep the thread on track, you must realize that talking about technical achievements in or around a given field, one must not allow irrelevant, ignorant and dubious opinions and claims.

Military aviation is not an insignificant matter where claims can simply go unsupported.


coming to you assumption / question, without taking away any of the achievement merit.. I don't think the J-20 is designed to be something in particular.

My assumption (and that is what it is) and I have stated it before, is that the J-20 is an evolution of the MiG-1.44, to be more precise a stealthified evolution of the MiG-1.44, and hence it's size comes from the "stealthification" process, not a particular design goal.

that's my 2p to your question.

But a prolonged tirade by any side "To prove I am right" wastes time and effort and derails the discussion.
Agreeing to disagree not only keeps the discussion on track..but also creates a level of respect. One can ignore pointless posts by using the ignore option.

On your claim that the J-20 is a continuation of the 1.44.. I disagree.
Sweetman was right in pointing out the similarities between a concept JAST and the J-20.
There is a lot more similarity there than the mig 1.44.
Which makes sense as the Chinese have been hoarding information using their "Student spies" in the US.
Taking bits and pieces of incomplete irrelevant information to come up with a relevant study..
And this was in the 90's. Now they are much better placed to come up with genuine research..
Their technique is simple "Copy, Adapt, Innovate, Create"...
And from a personal experience as an embedded systems engineer.. Ill vouch for that.

There are two more confirmed Chinese programs in the pipeline which are being touted as more focused on air dominance.
The J-20 does look more like the FB-22 idea than the F-22.. but in my view we are dealing with a modern day Avro-105.
Targeting Key assets such as AWACS ,Refuellers and Bombers.

In this day's age of HOBS and HMS.. Perhaps the Chinese have chosen to compromise on maneuverablity and stealth.. and trade it for speed.

but I wonder that in a scenario other than a head on engagement.. if the multiple flat surfaces near the tail will make it stand out on the EM spectrum
 
.
But a prolonged tirade by any side "To prove I am right" wastes time and effort and derails the discussion.
Agreeing to disagree not only keeps the discussion on track..but also creates a level of respect. One can ignore pointless posts by using the ignore option.

On your claim that the J-20 is a continuation of the 1.44.. I disagree.
Sweetman was right in pointing out the similarities between a concept JAST and the J-20.
There is a lot more similarity there than the mig 1.44.
Which makes sense as the Chinese have been hoarding information using their "Student spies" in the US.
Taking bits and pieces of incomplete irrelevant information to come up with a relevant study..
And this was in the 90's. Now they are much better placed to come up with genuine research..
Their technique is simple "Copy, Adapt, Innovate, Create"...
And from a personal experience as an embedded systems engineer.. Ill vouch for that.

There are two more confirmed Chinese programs in the pipeline which are being touted as more focused on air dominance.
The J-20 does look more like the FB-22 idea than the F-22.. but in my view we are dealing with a modern day Avro-105.
Targeting Key assets such as AWACS ,Refuellers and Bombers.

In this day's age of HOBS and HMS.. Perhaps the Chinese have chosen to compromise on maneuverablity and stealth.. and trade it for speed.

but I wonder that in a scenario other than a head on engagement.. if the multiple flat surfaces near the tail will make it stand out on the EM spectrum

I see where you are coming from, however I must point out that the JAST concept was merely a powered mock up. The MiG 1.44 actually flew. That would mean there is a tonne more of available information on the particular design than the JAST abandoned project.

If you contemplate on what kind of redesign is needed to convert those bottom chin intakes into side ones and blend the upper fuselage with the wing for a smooth blended surface above and allow for a weapons bay, it is immediately clear how you end up with a size like the J-20.

A lot of people here claim that there is a 3D TVC engine in the pipeline, not seeing that in the J-20 there is simply not enough separation of the engines to make 3D TVC effective. Which means the plane (in my book) was designed as such.

I don't know what validity an interceptor would have in China's arsenal. The plane obviously seems capable to carry enough fuel to extend the reach well into the sea.. but can it carry competent weapons to do any damage ?
 
.
I see where you are coming from, however I must point out that the JAST concept was merely a powered mock up. The MiG 1.44 actually flew. That would mean there is a tonne more of available information on the particular design than the JAST abandoned project.

If you contemplate on what kind of redesign is needed to convert those bottom chin intakes into side ones and blend the upper fuselage with the wing for a smooth blended surface above and allow for a weapons bay, it is immediately clear how you end up with a size like the J-20.

A lot of people here claim that there is a 3D TVC engine in the pipeline, not seeing that in the J-20 there is simply not enough separation of the engines to make 3D TVC effective. Which means the plane (in my book) was designed as such.

I don't know what validity an interceptor would have in China's arsenal. The plane obviously seems capable to carry enough fuel to extend the reach well into the sea.. but can it carry competent weapons to do any damage ?

Again.. if following your fanboy thinking, redesigning flanker to become PAKFA is much easier than redesign Mig 1.44 to become J-20.

The changing from Flanker to PAKFA is not far from like changing F-15C to Silent Eagle F-15 SE
The changing from Mig 1.44 to J-20 cannot follow evolution pattern, but require the design from begining, because the airframe of both are totally different.

Delta wing & canard is not exclusively belong to Mig 1.44; a lot of a/c like rafale, typhoon, J-10, grippen, vigen apply the same configuration, hence there is no emulation logic here. If the stealth a/c will assume delta wing & canard configuration, then it must have wing configuration similarities with that of Mig 1.44/rafale/typhoon/vigen/j-10/grippen, and doesn't mean that stealth a/c is an evolution from one of the a/c
 
.
From the intelligent to the semi-intelligent posts it seems that the J-20 is a compromise if there was ever a word.
But compromise to what role? HVAA interceptor? Stand off weapon equipped penetrator?
On your claim that the J-20 is a continuation of the 1.44.. I disagree.
My take is that the J-20 -- planform wise -- is not a compromise but an improvement from the 1.44...

mig-144_j-20.jpg


To include aerodynamics from the Rafale...

rafale_j-20.jpg


Some focused on the Rafale's single vertical stab and that missed the point completely regarding adoption of diverse sources to make an improvement.
 
.
I see where you are coming from, however I must point out that the JAST concept was merely a powered mock up. The MiG 1.44 actually flew. That would mean there is a tonne more of available information on the particular design than the JAST abandoned project.

If you contemplate on what kind of redesign is needed to convert those bottom chin intakes into side ones and blend the upper fuselage with the wing for a smooth blended surface above and allow for a weapons bay, it is immediately clear how you end up with a size like the J-20.

A lot of people here claim that there is a 3D TVC engine in the pipeline, not seeing that in the J-20 there is simply not enough separation of the engines to make 3D TVC effective. Which means the plane (in my book) was designed as such.

I don't know what validity an interceptor would have in China's arsenal. The plane obviously seems capable to carry enough fuel to extend the reach well into the sea.. but can it carry competent weapons to do any damage ?

That may have provided a basic avionics databook.. but the refinements in design clearly have an American hue to them.
It may have been a case of "Lets take that idea and that idea and make this"..rather than "lets see how we can make this better".

I am not sure of the 3D TVC engine theories since there was a 2D TVC engine made for a fighter of the J-10 class(from a PAF source) but it was 1.4 times heavier than its conventional counterpart and not feasible yet. The Chinese may or may not have made improvements then.. but this is recent news to me so I do not expect a Chinese TVC anytime soon.
I see the J-20 relying more on its aerodynamics .. and possible breaking its canard RCS limiters when needed..
Although I imagine the result on a radar scope would show up like a blinker going on and off.

An interceptor or rather penetrating interceptor may have the capacity to get close enough to High value aerial force multiplier assets and pose a serious threat even with escorts present. The Russians had this idea with the mig-25 when the E-3 first came into the scene I think... having it zoom climb above escorts and launch R-40's at high speed toward the E-3.
While such a doctrine was simplistic at best.. a relatively stealthy attacker using a dogleg course could make it close enough to launch Passive homers at an Electromagnetic powerhouse such as an AEW&C system.
The same logic could be applied to execute attacks on bases such as Kadena and fly outside of detection ranges of Aegis missle pickets and the like to take out key targets on the ground.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom