Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[gambit]

Our mr gambit has reaches highest level of nirvana, water splash can be called rain? Those water pump out has zero level of acidic level, while you cant be sure of rain fallen from sky?

That is just pathetic.

If rainwater have enough acid to literally ruin any EM absorbant material, which is constructed to withstand Mach to start, then said rainwater would be strong enough to kill anyone on the ground.

But I will give you a bone...

- The argument/criticism that rain affects low radar observability have a kernel of truth in it.
- Have nothing to do with acid.
- Needs basic understanding of radar detection.

I have explained this before in this forum. Those who read that explanation did their own research and no longer believe that crappy video from Rachel Maddow. Now only gullible Chinese would believe her. You can stand apart from that crowd by searching for that explanation.

Oh no, but the canards will flip and flap around and give this aircraft the RCS of a B-52.

The trailing edges of the canards will also diffract onto the main wings and fuselage. Isn't that right gambit?

/sarcasm

Boeing unveils updated F/A-XX sixth-gen fighter concept

Concept is not the same as final product.

 

[Fsjal]

check this out. the koreans are planing to make j-20 clone too. everyone is copying dumb chinese 25 year old design

If you consider them dumb design, then go design a smart design of yours.

Suggestion- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Paper_Airplane.png

 

[qwerrty]

sarcasm doesn't work on some people

 

[Pfpilot]

Concept is not the same as final product.

Could you share any observations you may have made looking at the general direction Boeing is taking. The canards are especially confounding to me; I have been under the assumption that they increase the RCS. A problem that should be easily avoidable considering how powerful contemporary American jet engines are. The yf-23 was capable enough without canards, I wonder if this is merely a design released for aesthetics or will some of these design elements define the next era of air combat. What is your opinion?

 

[gambit]

Could you share any observations you may have made looking at the general direction Boeing is taking. The canards are especially confounding to me; I have been under the assumption that they increase the RCS. A problem that should be easily avoidable considering how powerful contemporary American jet engines are. The yf-23 was capable enough without canards, I wonder if this is merely a design released for aesthetics or will some of these design elements define the next era of air combat. What is your opinion?

I explained some about RCS control here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/207796-project-310-news-discussions-72.html#post4135557

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/207796-project-310-news-discussions-72.html#post4135592

I have never said that canards by themselves are good or bad. I have always said they should be taken in relationships with other structures, but canards do give initial suspicions by simple virtue of their locations and because of flight control laws, how much they must deflect in order to execute maneuvers. Not many people know this but major aviation powerhouse General Dynamics was disqualified from the first 'stealth' fighter competition because their design have a single vertical stab, which is a huge no-no, so there is no telling what Boeing have in mind.

Personally, I doubt that canards will be employed, unless there is a major breakthrough in absorber technology that renders structures effectively non-radiating.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I explained some about RCS control here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/207796-project-310-news-discussions-72.html#post4135557

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/207796-project-310-news-discussions-72.html#post4135592

I have never said that canards by themselves are good or bad. I have always said they should be taken in relationships with other structures, but canards do give initial suspicions by simple virtue of their locations and because of flight control laws, how much they must deflect in order to execute maneuvers. Not many people know this but major aviation powerhouse General Dynamics was disqualified from the first 'stealth' fighter competition because their design have a single vertical stab, which is a huge no-no, so there is no telling what Boeing have in mind.

Personally, I doubt that canards will be employed, unless there is a major breakthrough in absorber technology that renders structures effectively non-radiating.

@gambit;
In an earlier post you said this:

- The argument/criticism that rain affects low radar observability have a kernel of truth in it.
- Have nothing to do with acid.
- Needs basic understanding of radar detection.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-215.html#ixzz2Pzevf0Vp

Airborne radar is not my area of expertise, only some exposure to marine radar; so
Will it have something to do with 'clutter' patterns? that could affect the echo?

 

[gambit]

@gambit;
In an earlier post you said this:



Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ft-updates-discussions-215.html#ixzz2Pzevf0Vp

Airborne radar is not my area of expertise, only some exposure to marine radar; so
Will it have something to do with 'clutter' patterns? that could affect the echo?

You are on the right track. Are you asking about the 'rain' issue?

Basically, water droplets increases surface area and surface discontinuities.

And this increased and diffused radiation pattern could increase a body's RCS. It also depends on the freq employed, of course, because these water droplets are in the centimetric and millimetric sizes.

It is only with ideal combination of:

- Freq employed,
- Concentration of the weather phenomena,
- Duration inside the weather phenomena,
- Altitude because water droplet sizes are not uniform at all altitudes,
- And airspeed...

...That 'stealth' can be sufficiently compromised.

So when Rachel Maddow smirked in her hack job video about how the F-22 can be 'ruined' by rain, she was talking about a one-in-a-million ideal situation. She was clearly ignorant and did not performed due diligence as befit a real journalist. And of course, millions of gullible people swallowed wholesale what she said and believes her to some sort of 'expert'.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You are on the right track. Are you asking about the 'rain' issue?

Basically, water droplets increases surface area and surface discontinuities.

And this increased and diffused radiation pattern could increase a body's RCS. It also depends on the freq employed, of course, because these water droplets are in the centimetric and millimetric sizes.

It is only with ideal combination of:

- Freq employed,
- Concentration of the weather phenomena,
- Duration inside the weather phenomena,
- Altitude because water droplet sizes are not uniform at all altitudes,
- And airspeed...

...That 'stealth' can be sufficiently compromised.

So when Rachel Maddow smirked in her hack job video about how the F-22 can be 'ruined' by rain, she was talking about a one-in-a-million ideal situation. She was clearly ignorant and did not performed due diligence as befit a real journalist. And of course, millions of gullible people swallowed wholesale what she said and believes her to some sort of 'expert'.

@gambit; Thanks.
If I could, i'd buy you a beer. Not just for this post but also for all the other bit n pieces of information that I've been able to gather from your posts.

 

[Dongfeng]

You are on the right track. Are you asking about the 'rain' issue?

Basically, water droplets increases surface area and surface discontinuities.


And this increased and diffused radiation pattern could increase a body's RCS. It also depends on the freq employed, of course, because these water droplets are in the centimetric and millimetric sizes.

It is only with ideal combination of:

- Freq employed,
- Concentration of the weather phenomena,
- Duration inside the weather phenomena,
- Altitude because water droplet sizes are not uniform at all altitudes,
- And airspeed...

...That 'stealth' can be sufficiently compromised.

So when Rachel Maddow smirked in her hack job video about how the F-22 can be 'ruined' by rain, she was talking about a one-in-a-million ideal situation. She was clearly ignorant and did not performed due diligence as befit a real journalist. And of course, millions of gullible people swallowed wholesale what she said and believes her to some sort of 'expert'.

Rachel Maddow merely exposed the many flaws in the F-22 (and there are many), not sure why that's wrong. Because the F-22 is a flawed fighter, thats why the US capped it at 187 fighters. The USAF realised the flaws but chose to give budgetary excuses to save face, Rachel just came out and straight out exposed the real reason why the F-22 has stopped production at 187. She was doing her job as a journalist.

 

[gambit]

Rachel Maddow merely exposed the many flaws in the F-22 (and there are many), not sure why that's wrong. Because the F-22 is a flawed fighter, thats why the US capped it at 187 fighters. The USAF realised the flaws but chose to give budgetary excuses to save face, Rachel just came out and straight out exposed the real reason why the F-22 has stopped production at 187. She was doing her job as a journalist.

When you are ignorant but convinced that you are knowledgeable, there is no possible dispute to the delusional. That is Rachel Maddow and the Chinese members here. The F-22 is 'flawed'? In what ways? Right...In the ways that Rachel Maddow explained. Circular 'logic'.

 

[selvan33]

China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design

China’s under-development J-20 combat aircraft recently demonstrated its missile-launch mechanism, which the Chinese media tout as a simple but “more efficient” design than that of the American F-22.


J-20 number 2002, one of the two prototypes that have been made known to the public, carried a short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) aft of the air intake. The missile, identified as China’s newly developed PL-10, was shown in a video inside the starboard intake weapons bay before being moved outside the airplane by an ejection system. The door of the bay then closed, leaving the missile outside, but still attached to the airframe.

This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.

Despite the Chinese media’s acclaim for the J-20’s missile launch mechanism, Chen Kuo-ming, senior editor with the Taiwan-based Defence International magazine, said what’s more important is whether the J-20 could fire short-range AAMs from off-boresight angles as acute as those possible from the F-22. For the moment, the PL-10 does not seem to be comparable to the AIM-9X AAM of the F-22 in respect to off-boresight capability.

The J-20 is expected to begin air-to-air weapons firing tests soon. It carries two short-range PL-10s, one in each air-intake bay, and six to eight medium-range P-12s in the main internal weapons bay below the mid-fuselage.
China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design | Aviation International News

 

[sms]

^^ looks too complicated to me! I'm expecting to see major change in design soon. :fingers are crossed:

 

[IND151]

China’s under-development J-20 combat aircraft recently demonstrated its missile-launch mechanism, which the Chinese media tout as a simple but “more efficient” design than that of the American F-22.

J-20 number 2002, one of the two prototypes that have been made known to the public, carried a short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) aft of the air intake. The missile, identified as China’s newly developed PL-10, was shown in a video inside the starboard intake weapons bay before being moved outside the airplane by an ejection system. The door of the bay then closed, leaving the missile outside, but still attached to the airframe.

This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.

Despite the Chinese media’s acclaim for the J-20’s missile launch mechanism, Chen Kuo-ming, senior editor with the Taiwan-based Defence International magazine, said what’s more important is whether the J-20 could fire short-range AAMs from off-boresight angles as acute as those possible from the F-22. For the moment, thePL-10 does not seem to be comparable to the AIM-9X AAM of the F-22 in respect to off-boresight capability.

The J-20 is expected to begin air-to-air weapons firing tests soon. It carries two short-range PL-10s, one in each air-intake bay, and six to eight medium-range P-12s in the main internal weapons bay below the mid-fuselage.


China Claims Innovation in J-20 Weapons Bay Design | idrw.org
@sancho @Safriz @ANTIBODY > kindly take a look at the GIF

 

[sms]

^^^ how will they manage multiple missiles in bay? or they are just planning lo load single missile per side weapon bay?

 

[SQ8]

This arrangement is said to allow the missile to be fired in the shortest time possible. In the F-22 design, the door of its side internal weapons bay has to remain open for the launch of a missile, thus possibly compromising its stealth capability. By contrast, the J-20 could stay stealthy throughout the missile-launch process by keeping the bay door closed.

Im not sure what innovation is being claimed with regards to the sentence above?

first, the How does a platform that moves the missle outside the bay then closes the doors take less time than a trapeze that brings it out? Unless they are using faster motors.. it's a moot point.

Second, the RCS of the Missile also exists.. hence whether the bay is closed or not there will still be a spike from the RCS of the PL-10. if that is less than that of the missle outside the bay then it's an academic thing. But considering that you are talking about a WVR missle it means you have already closed into range that will allow the enemy to either see you or otherwise.
It would make sense if the launch system allowed for a more rapid firing of the missile that might allow for close in silent attacks using a LOAL(Lock-on After launch) mode but the reporting here claims something entirely pointless.

The only actual innovation I see in this is the simplicity movement in terms of the missile rail as compared to the multiple joints that go into the F-22's design. There is no other actual "innovation" to the design when it comes to RCS or firing mechanism.