Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the main issue for China, Japan or Russia at this moment is they lack operational engines as powerful as F119 or F135, both Su-57 and J-20 do not have full aspect stealth because 2D nozzles reduce thrust and add weight, less thrust means drag has a higher impact, the Japanese for example still are developing the XF9 engine which still is not better than 117S that powers Su-57, Su-57 may fit a 2D nozzles like F-22, but at the moment are regular axisymmetric nozzles in both 117S and T-30 engines.Come on, there's tons of reason how each of fifth generation fighter layout designed, but overall I pretty sure that has something to do with each nations AF strategic needs or doctrines such as American that place priority on full spectrum stealth, but of course different perspectives for China and Russia. So my point was to debated all stealth characteristic of J-20 and F-22 was pointless since their created based on different standard. From my point of view, J-20 for China was first step plus minus, build J-20 mean for China can gained a lot thing of stealth characteristics, beside J-20 still has plenty room for improvement. And don't forget China's 6th generation still on waiting list.
In what way am I 'exaggerating' and exaggerating what?
My point was that the F-22's classic intakes with their diverter plates are irrelevant at some aspects but the J-20's canards are available at all aspects.
He doesn't. He's a know-nothing janitor with delusions of being an aeronautical engineer/pilot who should be booted from here like he was booted from SDF. As you've undoubtedly noticed, you'll get nothing but canned nonsense from him if you ask him anything outside janitorial lines. I'm being generous in assuming he can answer janitorial questions cogently, but it's a wholly unwarranted assumption.How?
How do you know canards contribute more rcs compared to classic intake with mechanical diverter?
the main issue for China, Japan or Russia at this moment is they lack operational engines as powerful as F119 or F135, both Su-57 and J-20 do not have full aspect stealth because 2D nozzles reduce thrust and add weight, less thrust means drag has a higher impact, the Japanese for example still are developing the XF9 engine which still is not better than 117S that power Su-57, Su-57 may fit a 2D nozzles like F-22, but at the moment are regular axisymmetric nozzles in both 117S and T-30 engines.
In the case of F-35, flat 2D nozzles like those on F-22 means lower thrust and added weight, basically putting too much strain on the TWR of F-35, J-31 well has old RD-93 of very low power yield for a 5th generation aircraft.
This design constraint is behind some of the less stealthy features of J-20, in order to achieve higher STR, you need higher thrust, and in order to have maximum lift, canards were added, the wing canard interaction assures higher lift than with aft planes; the ventral fins are basically for high AoA regimes, because the J-20 fuselage can blank them and render them useless by the turbulent wake, so its ventral fins are not in the wake of turbulence assuring controllability at high AoA, the F-22 has taller and higher dorsal vertical fins but adds controllability by the use of Thrust vectoring control nozzles for pitch control and roll control by aft tails, but in order to have full aspect stealth and thrust vectoring control they have very powerful engines.
Then F-22 does not need ventral fins, Su-57 with 3D thrust vectoring nozzles well does not need ventral fins either.
J-20 future variants might change that once that have an engine powerful enough to add 2D flat nozzles and even a tailless design
Can we stop arguing about this pointless topic? Clearly we are going in circles. This thread should consist of J-20 pictures, updates, and developments instead of a bunch of arguments based on conjecture.How?
How do you know canards contribute more rcs compared to classic intake with mechanical diverter?
There was a picture of the J-20 HMD picture taken this year or last year ... google it. Normally, there is only footage of the pilots in these light, non-HMD helmets.No HMD, I guess...
in general most aircraft are designed with on design parameters and off design features, aircraft like F-117 have the ideal low IR, low RCS nozzles, disadvantage they cool and lower the pressure of the jet engine that the jet engines lose thrust, stealth not always goes well with aerodynamics in fact the Su-27 forebody is the ideal for low drag, basically its radome is a missile type forebody, but it is not good for stealth, J-20 has a better fuselage for stealth but creates more drag, so all technologies have pros and cons, in reality J-20 will need to know the rivals on design features to find the off design disadvantages, here is where tactics become relevant, it is not that any aircraft is the best in everything, that only exist in the mind of fans, in reality a fighter pilot has to find the advantages of his aircraft against its rival, to give you an example, most fighter aircraft during the cold war did not use weapons bays because they increase weight and size, semi-recessed weapons were the lowest drag possible in example Tornado or F-14, but that is not good for stealth, this forces J-20 to have a very powerful engine, let us remember it has a substantially larger fuselage than other stealth aircraft, i read a few days ago a Russian article that says chinese TV said they plan to make 36 J-20s a year, and one of the production lines will have Al-31s powered J-20 and other WS-15, but the fact is without a good engine is hard to make an equivalent to F-22."both Su-57 and J-20 do not have full aspect stealth because 2D nozzles reduce thrust and add weight, less thrust means drag has a higher impact...
...flat 2D nozzles like those on F-22 means lower thrust and added weight..."
Stealth-wise, 2D rectangular thrust nozzles have better stealth properties than 3D circular thrust nozzles. While the latter can swivel in any direction and is lighter, the former reflects radar waves in well-defined directions rather than scattering them everywhere. However, no thrust-vectoring and instead just fixed heat-ablating nozzle exhaust like YF-23 is the most superior for extremely-low stealth, but Chengdu picked circular nozzle for J-20 for lower weight and higher maneuverability, even F-35's F135 engine uses circular nozzle for similar reasons.
Can we stop arguing about this pointless topic? Clearly we are going in circles. This thread should consist of J-20 pictures, updates, and developments instead of a bunch of arguments based on conjecture.
There was a picture of the J-20 HMD picture taken this year or last year ... google it. Normally, there is only footage of the pilots in these light, non-HMD helmets.
When I was active duty and assigned to the F-111, the jet have a weapons bay but it was hardly ever used. In fact, the F-111's weapons bay became a cargo bay for deployment. We packed personal items to souvenirs....to give you an example, most fighter aircraft during the cold war did not use weapons bays because they increase weight and size,...
delta dart had a weapon bays, so did Voodoomost fighter aircraft during the cold war did not use weapons bays because they increase weight and size
That is why he said 'most'. My F-111 has a weapons bay.delta dart had a weapon bays, so did Voodoo
delta dart had a weapon bays, so did Voodoo
How can internal weapon bays increase drag of the 5th gen stealth jet kindly explain maybe it increases little bit weight and both Russia and China working their 5th gen engine for their 5th gen jets from day one both Su-57/J-20 known to have interim engine,and as they(China/Russia)have different philosophy then USA they will use tactics against enemy(USA)shoot and scoot (leave)guideness of BVR is/will be the job of AWACS @Su33KUB
let me clarify, as Gambit already told a few aircraft carried internal weapons bays, but they were big or attack aircraft, F-111, A-5 Vigilante were interdictors, F-106 was huge, compared to a Mirage III it was too big, in order to have internal weapons bays, you need to increase thrust in a fighter.
F-15 has almost the same TWR to F-22, but F-22 has no aerodynamic clutter so it has no drag generated by external hardpoints or fuel tanks, but but here is the most important part it has engines of 16 tonnes, really economical compared to F100 so it can have higher performance.
try to see, internal weapons bays increase the fuselage size and weight, this creates more drag, in order to solve this you need no external weapons hardpoints, no external fuel tanks and much more powerful engines.
117S for example has less thrust than f119, so you can not expect Su-57 to have better performance than F-22, at similar weights.
F-15 does not need external weapons bays, it is lighter than F-22, thus it needs less thrust to achieve similar TWR than F-22.
Then you have to see both China and Russia if they do not develop high power engines, then J-20 and Su-57 are under powered and even if they do not carry weapons externally they have to overcome much more weight and drag, so F-22 has the need for bigger wings and more powerful engines, as shown in combat Eurofighter with semi-recessed weapons can outfight F-22 in WVR, because it has very high TWR and low wing loading.
F-22 uses TVC nozzles and has high power engines, without similar engines you can not expect J-20 to be a peer and outmaneuver F-22, J-20 is heavy, much much heavier than F-15 and if it uses engines for Su-27 type aircraft, no way it can compete with F-22 in tactics at BVR and WVR because without similar supercruise speed and TWR and TVC nozzles.