Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[rcrmj]

Most of those predictions from so called CAC big wigs are BSers. I've lost count at the number of failed predictions announced as breaking news from the same small handful of so-called China nationalists. The best sources are almost always from regular military analysts from the general public who are simply able to put 2 and 2 together logically.

sources please, i mean reliable, not some maybe this and maby that.

what prediction we failed? CAC J-20? I remember people were laughing at 'fangoys' claim before 2011, and people were laughing CAC JF-17 like 10 years ago, and laughing at J-10 like 15 years ago, remember those so called regular 'military analysts' were laughing the loudest and at end the day all got heavy slaps in their face

 

[marshall]

sources please, i mean reliable, not some maybe this and maby that.

what prediction we failed? CAC J-20? I remember people were laughing at 'fangoys' claim before 2011, and people were laughing CAC JF-17 like 10 years ago, and laughing at J-10 like 15 years ago, remember those so called regular 'military analysts' were laughing the loudest and at end the day all got heavy slaps in their face

Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...

* imminent J-16 1st flight (announced 3 or 4 times all fake)
* J-20 using WS-15 confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10G confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10A confirmed (unverifiable) - but probable
* 052D under construction confirmed (was actually hospital ship)
* T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun (widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)

...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

This is what I have been trying to say all this time: Wait.

The J-20 is too early. If the aircraft turned out to be as 'stealthy' as the F-22 within a couple of percentage points, I have no problems calling it an F-22 equivalent. People should realize that the reason why the aviation world give US the latitude they did with the F-22 is because we have a record: F-117 and B-2.

China has no such record. Not even close. So if the aviation world, professional and lay, are skeptical of any claim by any fanboy, we have good cause to do so: No record.


Upon what foundation did you make that guess?

Here's why I say the upper bound RCS is clean EF-2000.

1. Both the J-20 and the EF-2000 share many design traits. Of the ones that differ, they differ only as to reduce the RCS of that particular design trait, while seeming to not affect other parts.

2. Both the J-20 and the EF-2000 have 2 engines and a delta canard configuration.

3. The EF-2000 has its intakes in a row at the bottom of the fuselage. The J-20 has side intakes. This is one major design difference. I cannot say one way or another that one would result in a larger RCS or whether the RCS difference is significant. However, I don't think you can either. The easiest way to say it is, they're going to be the same.

4. There is another major design difference: the J-20 has internal weapons bays, so its RCS will not change with or without weapons. Can't be said of EF-2000.

5. And the final part is, it at least has RAM paint on a frame that's similar enough to the EF-2000 to have it as a model.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...

* imminent J-16 1st flight (announced 3 or 4 times all fake)
* J-20 using WS-15 confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10G confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10A confirmed (unverifiable) - but probable
* 052D under construction confirmed (was actually hospital ship)
* T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun (widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)

...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.

I don't know what to say except for the tunnels, I'm just going to make a simple analogy.

Would I build 50 garages for 3 cars?

 

[ptldM3]

You are correct that there is an extremely small perpendicular surface from the J-20 DSI intake in relation to a radar emitter. Want me to say RAM-covered surface for the third time (see previous posts #1197 and #1200)?

Once again you are playing the two card. You are telling everyone here that because the J-20 has RAM it's humps or bumps (as you like to say) do not pose a problem; however, with regards to the F-35 or pak-fa you claim that both aircraft are 'unstealthy' because of their bumps and humps. There are many things wrong with your assertions but the two that really stand out is that you claim size as a measurment of 'stealth'--now ironically the J-20's bumps and humps are very large and there are numerious (4 wing pods, DSI, buldges under the canards and curved fuselage aft of the aircraft before the nozzles).

Moreover, your DSI argumant has little merit. Just because you say the DSI is stealth does not make it so. No matter how smooth you claim it to be, no matter how stealthy you claim it to be it is still a convex structure. It's no suprise that a convex structure has the strongest returnes from its center mass. The J-20's DSI is a convex structure therefor it has a point of center mass.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Once again you are playing the two card. You are telling everyone here that because the J-20 has RAM it's humps or bumps (as you like to say) do not pose a problem; however, with regards to the F-35 or pak-fa you claim that both aircraft are 'unstealthy' because of their bumps and humps. There are many things wrong with your assertions but the two that really stand out is that you claim size as a measurment of 'stealth'--now ironically the J-20's bumps and humps are very large and there are numerious (4 wing pods, DSI, buldges under the canards and curved fuselage aft of the aircraft before the nozzles).

Moreover, your DSI argumant has little merit. Just because you say the DSI is stealth does not make it so. No matter how smooth you claim it to be, no matter how stealthy you claim it to be it is still a convex structure. It's no suprise that a convex structure has the strongest returnes from its center mass. The J-20's DSI is a convex structure therefor it has a point of center mass.

the DSI is also partially within the intake, so do you think it may be likely that it was designed to take the destructive interference of the intakes into account?

 

[marshall]

I don't know what to say except for the tunnels, I'm just going to make a simple analogy.

Would I build 50 garages for 3 cars?

You have to consider the strategy behind those tunnels because they are obviously to improve survivability. If China's strategy BEFORE these supposed THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels (BS in my opinion) were constructed were to keep a few hundred nuclear missiles vulnerable and out in the open, why would they now keep THOUSANDS of them in much more survivable tunnels? It makes no sense unless you are trying to provide an incentive to maintain or increase the American military budget. Surprise surprise, the people promoting this ridiculous idea are American right-wing neocons and gullible China military enthusiasts. If China wanted to have THOUSANDS of nukes, they would have already had them BEFORE the creation of these tunnels. Note that I do not dispute these tunnels existence, I dispute their extent. The much more realistic, cheaper, survivable and simpler solution would be to deploy more strategic nuclear subs.

 

[帅的一匹]

Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...

* imminent J-16 1st flight (announced 3 or 4 times all fake)
* J-20 using WS-15 confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10G confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10A confirmed (unverifiable) - but probable
* 052D under construction confirmed (was actually hospital ship)
* T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun (widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)

...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.

I've got to say you're a goofy clown. You try to coax us out where is the precise location of those tunnel by keeping provoking us, re you? You've never been to China , you're not qualified laughing at us due to your retarded head and ignorant. We started to build tunnle since last 1950's, and we successfully build train rail on frozen ground in Tibetan when no country could believe that.By the way, it is understandable why you think it hard to build tunnel by penetrating granite casue Marshall is not that geograghly big.

 

[rcrmj]

Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...

* imminent J-16 1st flight (announced 3 or 4 times all fake)
* J-20 using WS-15 confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10G confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10A confirmed (unverifiable) - but probable
* 052D under construction confirmed (was actually hospital ship)
* T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun (widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)

...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.

read post 1291 you will get the idea why we like to laugh at your people's doubt of certain things, unverified doesnt make it BS, its just your ignorant pre-judgment. before 2011 CAC J-20 was also not 'verified'``we chinese know very well the CCP style of revealing sensitive datas, thats why we have the 'wall climbing parties' and whats why we know what is certain and what is speculation from 'insiders'

and if you take T99 with 155mm gun seriosuly then I really doubt your ability to diffrienciate what is nonsens and what is BS with stereotyps.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Of the multiple announcements of fake breaking news sourced from so-called CAC insiders, usually from the Chinese bbses, I can recall...

* imminent J-16 1st flight (announced 3 or 4 times all fake)
* J-20 using WS-15 confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10G confirmed (unverifiable)
* J-20 using WS-10A confirmed (unverifiable) - but probable
* 052D under construction confirmed (was actually hospital ship)
* T99KM with 2000+hp and 155mm gun (widespread rumor with Photoshops, no proof)

...that's off the top of my head, all purportedly verified by big cheeses from CAC, SAC, Jiangnan, Norinco. I'm just saying that readers have to be discerning when reading about various developments because many of them simply smell of BS. The latest BS that recently passed as fact was the idea that China has THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels containing THOUSANDS of mobile ICBMs. The very concept of such a vast underground network would indicate its strategic purpose were for survivability which would indicate the requirement for FEWER...NOT MORE nuclear missiles. Also, the construction of tunnels large enough to transport and contain such large truck mounted ICBMs would suggest burrowing deep underground into solid granite. We know that such construction through mountains for vehicle traffic in China take many years for tunnels are that less than 20 miles. This stupid report suggested China constructed THOUSANDS of miles of these sorts of tunnels since the 1990s. It was pure BS and didn't remotely make any sense but it is considered fact by the American intelligence community because some college kids and their professor said so. This same phenomena of retarded "analysis", better known as wishful thinking, is prevalent as we can see.

When you are dealing with something that you don't have any idea, then it would be better for you to stay out of it.

Like Martian said before, if you have any complaint, then just create a new topic, and stop polluting environment here just like the three trolls we already have here.

If you have nothing else positive to contribute, then this thread is not welcome for you.

 

[ptldM3]

the DSI is also partially within the intake, so do you think it may be likely that it was designed to take the destructive interference of the intakes into account?

I do not feel that the DSI is a major problem (or any problem at all). My only problem is With Martian's views. On one hand he accuses the F-35's and pak-fa's bumps and humps of being detrimental to stealth; however, he denies that the J-20 has the same issues by simply calling the J-20's bumps and humps stealthy. The DSI in question is a convex structure, it being oval or sleek does not change that fact, and the whole argument behind a sphere not being so called stealthy is because of its convex property.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You have to consider the strategy behind those tunnels because they are obviously to improve survivability. If China's strategy BEFORE these supposed THOUSANDS of miles of tunnels (BS in my opinion) were constructed were to keep a few hundred nuclear missiles vulnerable and out in the open, why would they now keep THOUSANDS of them in much more survivable tunnels? It makes no sense unless you are trying to provide an incentive to maintain or increase the American military budget. Surprise surprise, the people promoting this ridiculous idea are American right-wing neocons and gullible China military enthusiasts. If China wanted to have THOUSANDS of nukes, they would have already had them BEFORE the creation of these tunnels. Note that I do not dispute these tunnels existence, I dispute their extent. The much more realistic, cheaper, survivable and simpler solution would be to deploy more strategic nuclear subs.

SLBMs are not the way to solve China's deterrent problems because it is not realistic, cheaper, survivable and simple. It is unrealistic, expensive, unsurvivable and complicated because the subs can't even leave the East China Sea without being tracked by the USN, and the maximum range of JL-2 is 8000 km, which cannot reach the US mainland.

A DF-31 road (or tunnel) mobile launcher can.

CCTV broadcasts talked about the tunnels a long time ago. Here's some photos from TV

http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_3942806_1.html

I'm just going to leave it at this. This is obviously top secret and no one knows where the tunnels actually are, their true extent, or whatever, just as no one knows how many nuclear warheads there are. All I know is, the US estimates of China's arsenal haven't changed for 20 years, so I'm going to take whatever the US government says with a supertanker full of salt.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

SLBMs are not the way to solve China's deterrent problems because it is not realistic, cheaper, survivable and simple. It is unrealistic, expensive, unsurvivable and complicated because the subs can't even leave the East China Sea without being tracked by the USN, and the maximum range of JL-2 is 8000 km, which cannot reach the US mainland.

A DF-31 road (or tunnel) mobile launcher can.

CCTV broadcasts talked about the tunnels a long time ago. Here's some photos from TV

http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_3942806_1.html

I'm just going to leave it at this. This is obviously top secret and no one knows where the tunnels actually are, their true extent, or whatever, just as no one knows how many nuclear warheads there are. All I know is, the US estimates of China's arsenal haven't changed for 20 years, so I'm going to take whatever the US government says with a supertanker full of salt.

The maximum range of JL-2A is 12000km, but we still do rely on the underground tunnel because it is a double insurance for our second strike capability.

BTW, this thread is about J-20, let's discuss the nuclear arsenal somewhere else.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I do not feel that the DSI is a major problem (or any problem at all). My only problem is With Martian's views. On one hand he accuses the F-35's and pak-fa's bumps and humps of being detrimental to stealth; however, he denies that the J-20 has the same issues by simply calling the J-20's bumps and humps stealthy. The DSI in question is a convex structure, it being oval or sleek does not change that fact, and the whole argument behind a sphere not being so called stealthy is because of its convex property.

I'm just going to say this. The J-20 has been flight tested 62 times this year. That means this is a serious project. The PAK-FA has been flight tested 3 times I think. I'm not saying that the PAK-FA is bad, just that the priority seems to be lower.

 

[gambit]

the DSI is also partially within the intake, so do you think it may be likely that it was designed to take the destructive interference of the intakes into account?

What make you think that there is ONLY destructive interference? Chinese physics? News for you: Whenever a cavity or tunnel is present, the default fear when it comes to RCS control is constructive interference.