What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

Ok, so I read this post from page 100 to now,...
You should read more. I posted plenty enough about this subject. I posted reputable sources. I encouraged people to use keywords searches to verify what I say and often I even provided those keywords. To date, no one have ever return to this forum and proved that I lied. Perhaps you would be the first?

... let me respond to that by saying, yes everything you are about to say is right.
Wise decision.

...J-20 is a copy from Mig 1:44 and Rafael, I know he have finally lost his mind. Or rather, did he had it in 1st place?
Copy? Where did I said 'copy'? Or is it a typical 'troll' tactic by twisting someone else's argument to suit yours?

j-20_rafale_mig144.jpg


So where do you think the J-20 came from?
 
.
Well where else gambit? You are always right, the only way Chinese can make anything is by stealing and cheating. That picture you show me proves your point, case sealed. You know what? we should go out there and tell the whole world how evil the Chinese is.
 
.
Ok none troll post this time.

Here is my amature take of J-20 vs PAK-FA

J-20 is definitively a more stealthy, simply it has a lot less surface protrusions, especially when it come to the under belly, I mean, seriously PAK-FA underside is almost identical to the Flanker jets. Just by that alone, defeats the whole purpose of stealth.

Both J-20 and PAK-FA have other problems that is unstealthy, just like J-20's canard, or the area between the carnard to the body, and the gaps on PAK-FA's engine intake from front, and it is huge exposed metal engine at the back. And both jet's round engine nozzle in the end, but I think this one will be different for the production version in 8 years.

When it come to maneuverability, J-20 wins hands down, better than F-22 or PAK-FA, simply because the canard+delta wing gives great AOA and low speed stability.

When it come to sensor and radar, both China and Russia will have comparable technology by the time they are both induct into service, maybe there is a chance China will be slightly ahead, however both will still be inferior to F-22. Unless US is too poor to upgrade the them when the time comes. And oh yes F-22 beats both in stealth aspect.

As for how much did J-20 got influenced from outside? I would say the influence is there, but only by concept and appearance, because there is nothing wrong by taking proven concepts, mash them together to make it better. And in the end, J-20 will be different enough to stand out from the crowd and make a good impact on the battlefield.

And I am proud for China's progress. I remember in the mid 1990s people were joking that Chinese can't make a decent Mig-21 clone... when they did that, people were joking the best fighter Chinese had was the 1960s era J-8, then they come up with J-10, and people said, so what? J-10 is 1990s technology. And Chinese respond by J-20, when people see J-20 they still say no way Chinese can produce this, it must be a copy/clone/technology demonstrator, in fact the initial online review by the western press is nothing short of racism, and once again I know they will be prove wrong,

However those naysayer do have one good point, because is so far the Chinese had made great effort mostly because of learning from existing technology, however they are now approaching world standard, so the question is can they build upon this concept and produce the next generation of hardware that is more advanced than US? Only time will tell to see if the Chinese system can produce true innovations, I see argument from both side and they are equal valid, so only time will tell.
 
.
Well where else gambit? You are always right, the only way Chinese can make anything is by stealing and cheating. That picture you show me proves your point, case sealed. You know what? we should go out there and tell the whole world how evil the Chinese is.
Give the readers your best guess. Entertain us...Where do YOU think the J-20 came from? The Chinese boys would have us take their words for the J-20's low radar observability based upon looks alone. I have been advising caution and patience all this time. So now am using the same method -- looks.

Many people here believe that the F-15 came from the MIG-25 but we know that is not true. The F-15 and the MIG-25 came from the A-5...

a-5_mig-25_f-15_front.jpg


The genealogy between the aircrafts are undeniable. This is what happened when you use one as a template for another. It does not mean the products must be exactly alike but it does mean that if there are certain performance characteristics worthy of reproduction, some things must be emulated, if not outright cloned.

So where did the J-20 came from?
 
.
Well again gambit you have made a flawless argument, I for one, want to thank you for your "caution and patience all this time" in this trying times. J-20 must be clone from anywhere but China, because obviously Chinese can't do anything without stealing from others, very well done. :yahoo:
 
.
Ok none troll post this time.
That is usually expected.

Here is my amature take of J-20 vs PAK-FA
No problems there.

J-20 is definitively a more stealthy, simply it has a lot less surface protrusions, especially when it come to the under belly, I mean, seriously PAK-FA underside is almost identical to the Flanker jets. Just by that alone, defeats the whole purpose of stealth.
A reasonable argument concerning surface topography and surface discontinuities. However, being 'more stealthy' is quite meaningless unless we have credible data held against a known standard, which at this time is a clean F-16 at between 150-200 km out. Got any?

When it come to maneuverability, J-20 wins hands down, better than F-22 or PAK-FA, simply because the canard+delta wing gives great AOA and low speed stability.
Bunk...There is nothing 'simple' about it. For your information, flight control elements are called 'control effectors'...

IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page
Due to increased requirements on the reliability, maneuverability and survivability of modern and future manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, more control effectors/surfaces are being introduced. This introduces redundant or overactuated control effectors and requires the control allocation function, together with baseline flight control law, to be implemented in the overall flight control systems. In particular, in the case of control effector (actuator) failures or control surface damages, an effective re-distribution (or reallocation) of the control surface deflections with the remaining healthy control effectors is needed in order to achieve acceptable performance even in the presence of control effector failures.
The F-22's TVC-ed engines made them control effectors, in other words, in flight control systems design, ANYTHING that can alter an aircraft's attitude in at least two axes is qualified as a 'control effector'. The F-22's TVC-ed engines are just as effective as canards. The real issue is the differences in range of the canards versus the engines.

As for how much did J-20 got influenced from outside? I would say the influence is there, but only by concept and appearance, because there is nothing wrong by taking proven concepts, mash them together to make it better. And in the end, J-20 will be different enough to stand out from the crowd and make a good impact on the battlefield.
Never said there is. However, there is something wrong in denying it.

Well again gambit you have made a flawless argument, I for one, want to thank you for your "caution and patience all this time" in this trying times. J-20 must be clone from anywhere but China, because obviously Chinese can't do anything without stealing from others, very well done. :yahoo:
You are welcome.
 
.
Ok, so I read this post from page 100 to now, and there is only 1 thing I would like to say.... guys, don't argue with gambit, it is like trying to win the special Olympic, even if you win, you still feel handicapped.

Exactly!

He never dare to admit his clueless and loss
 
. .
This is so sad, its getting hilarious.
Responses like this mean you have no interests in a real discussion, let alone a debate to defend your arguments. What was that about being a troll?

Exactly!

He never dare to admit his clueless and loss
Yeah...You never served in the military. You lied about your aviation 'background'. And you got busted for not knowing that 'dB' is used in EM measurements. So of course everything we said is going to be 'nonsense' to you. :lol:
 
.
Well again gambit you have made a flawless argument, I for one, want to thank you for your "caution and patience all this time" in this trying times. J-20 must be clone from anywhere but China, because obviously Chinese can't do anything without stealing from others, very well done. :yahoo:

Exactly! what he can do is claiming, accusing, but when asked the evidence - he can't.

I have been asking him many times the proof that J-20 emulate the Rafale.

By his logic - Mig 1.4 and Typhoon also emulate Rafale due to similarity among them :laugh:

Responses like this mean you have no interests in a real discussion, let alone a debate to defend your arguments. What was that about being a troll?


Yeah...You never served in the military. You lied about your aviation 'background'. And you got busted for not knowing that 'dB' is used in EM measurements. So of course everything we said is going to be 'nonsense' to you. :lol:

It is you that lie; you were busted for not knowing a lot of things (nacelle, airduct, corner reflector, shaping, continuous curvature, and countless things else). Your qualification for low level maintenance guy is also far from being sufficient judging from your misconception and clueless :laugh:
 
.
Exactly! what he can do is claiming, accusing, but when asked the evidence - he can't.

I have been asking him many times the proof that J-20 emulate the Rafale.

By his logic - Mig 1.4 and Typhoon also emulate Rafale due to similarity among them
:laugh: I can tell that our new member are not impressed with your line of reasoning here, especially when the 1.44 is older than the Rafale.

It is you that lie; you were busted for not knowing a lot of things (nacelle, airduct, corner reflector, shaping, continuous curvature, and countless things else).
That is funny because I have been here longer than you. And yet no one agreed with you on that. So what you are implying here is that everyone here does not know the differences between nacelles, airducts, and corner reflectors. Congratulations, you have made yourself smarter than several hundred people.
 
. . .
:laugh: I can tell that our new member are not impressed with your line of reasoning here, especially when the 1.44 is older than the Rafale.

So you mean Rafale emulate mig 1.44?? :lol:

Your logic is still false.

That is funny because I have been here longer than you. And yet no one agreed with you on that. So what you are implying here is that everyone here does not know the differences between nacelles, airducts, and corner reflectors. Congratulations, you have made yourself smarter than several hundred people.

Really? because you are delusional.

Your friends is only silly amalakas, not qualified dr. sommath and only few delusional indians here; only they who could agree with you :lol:
 
.
Really? because you are delusional.

Your friends is only silly amalakas, not qualified dr. sommath and only few delusional indians here; only they who could agree with you :lol:
Fine...Then tell us what is your 'aviation background'? The one that you claimed to have when you tried to shut down the Indians.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom