gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
The issue here is planform alignment.IMO simply bias and surely most simply have no idea on stealth since Northrop Grumman - and they are not unknown in the field of stealth - proposed a delta-canard derivate of the ATF/YF-23 for the NAT program and the latest proposal for Boeing's 6th generation fighter is also a delta-canard design !!! So they are all wrong too ??
The J-20's defenders argued that the aircraft's canards' roots are on the same plane as the wings. That is a misunderstanding of low radar observability planform alignment.
It is not the roots that matters. It is the dihedral (upswept angle) of the canards, as shown above. Diffraction signals off the canards will approach the fuselage and wings differently than if the canards have no dihedral.
So just because there is a conceptual proposal whose design have canards, that does not mean how they are arrayed in relation to other structures do not matter.
In designing a low radar observable body, there are three guidelines to take into consideration:
- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation
Those guidelines are not meant to be 'broken', rather, it is about the degrees of obedience to them. To date, the B-2 is the most obedience to those guidelines. The most obedient body is the sphere.
If we go by visual appearance alone, the J-20 is less obedient to those guidelines than the F-22 and F-35. The Australians' criticisms of the F-35's bumps are off base. The J-20 is less obedient in terms of control of quantity and array of radiators, and we are looking at the major flight control structures.