Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[xxqa_ds]

Are you serious in making that statement ? Have you forgotten who you are talking about ? To the Chinese, no matter how technical valid is an argument, if it does not support Chinese claim, it is a racist insult. I thought you know that by now.

What you say on this thread, everybody knows, I can't see what you're say useful . What you're arguing about is just a waste of time. Besides, you even blame the Chinese for the argument". Just pride and prejudice.

Please discuss it rationally

It's no fun repeating some simple knowledge

I know there are always some pride and prejudice, both in the country and in the region. But please be more rational. You can't look at other people's arrogance, you also learn.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... WHAT DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ON STOP?!!

 

[samsara]

Are you serious in making that statement ? Have you forgotten who you are talking about ? To the Chinese, no matter how technical valid is an argument, if it does not support Chinese claim, it is a racist insult. I thought you know that by now.

Wow, so quick to jump the horse... taking the advantage of the west wind you're a real exploiter!

 

[xxqa_ds]

kid do research before you post CANARD is a major contributor to multiple radar reflections, J-20 have CANARDS because it has no TVC engine currently, without TVC engine and CANARDS J-20 as maneuverable as those fighter jets
F-106 DELA DART
View attachment 430404
JAS-35 DRAKEN
View attachment 430405
MIRAGE-3
View attachment 430407
your blind in patriotism

The J20 design chooses canard wings not because there is no TVC. But China's previous research on duck wings, a large number of achievements, technology is relatively mature. Designers should consider all aspects, and choose canard configuration after compromise. I personally think the delta wing does not meet the J20 mission requirements, so it is not selected. In fact, canard configurations should be considered as an improved form of delta wings.

 

[usmankhan9]

Sputnik is complete garbage. Their "expert", Vasily Kashin, is the go to person for all things military for basically all nations. Russia wants to badmouth the J-20 because they know their Su-57 hasn't gotten very far ...

Its garbage because its a russian website and what about american websites? What has Russia got to do with just one persons opinion. I think you need to closely follow the su-57 progress before passing away your judjement.

 

[rcrmj]

kid do research before you post CANARD is a major contributor to multiple radar reflections, J-20 have CANARDS because it has no TVC engine currently, without TVC engine and CANARDS J-20 as maneuverable as those fighter jets
F-106 DELA DART
View attachment 430404
JAS-35 DRAKEN
View attachment 430405
MIRAGE-3
View attachment 430407
your blind in patriotism

no J-20 is going to have TVC, and the current one doesnt have it which is not the reason that J-20 is a canard config````J-20 was designed with TVC in the very begining!

and canard is not the "major contributor" to radar reflections, the degree of radar reflection various in great deal with different conditions and prospects, hunderds say the least````even tails can be the "major contributor" when condition applies

the mostly used/referenced radar cross sections are classic ones like vertical head-on cross-section, vertical tail cross-section, like these vertical interfaces````

in terms of in head-on radar cross-section J-20 is quite close to F-22

 

[Ultima Thule]

?

no J-20 is going to have TVC, and the current one doesnt have it which is not the reason that J-20 is a canard config````J-20 was designed with TVC in the very begining!

and canard is not the "major contributor" to radar reflections, the degree of radar reflection various in great deal with different conditions and prospects, hunderds say the least``

the mostly used/referenced radar cross sections are classic ones like vertical head-on cross-section, vertical tail cross-section, like these vertical interfaces````

in terms of in head-on radar cross-section J-20 is quite close to F-22

Sir without canards can J-20 as maneuverable as with canards?

 

[rcrmj]

Sir without canards can J-20 as maneuverable as with canards

what do you mean by 'without'? its was designed as a canard config with TVC at the very begining of the competitions during 90s````serioulsy, what is your point?

 

[Taygibay]

I'm glad you forewent using insults even answering Figaro allowing
for the positive because as often this is an excellent post of yours.

But still, a precision and an added detail might fit in as well :

You can have these structures covered with absorbers but that will not change the laws of nature -- that the more quantity of radiators, the higher the quantity of reflected signals. Absorbers are just one method of reduction or negation of those reflected signals. But RAM do not change the laws of nature.

Actually, you can make structures out of radar transparent
material as I'm sure you know, a complex affair however.
You not only need to find or create a material with enough
strength for the application along with the transparency but
also to make it so it "fails" correctly.

A good example of this from my fave bird is in the refuelling
perch, vertical stab and canards all made that way on Rafale.
I've seen a few pics of different impacts on the canards :
they will delaminate to some degree if the strike is important
but they do so in orderly fashion so to speak. Apart from say
30mike, only one surface will break and the integrity of the
spars keeps with the motorized elements inside the fuselage.

I don't have a good idea of Chinese capacities in that domain
but it can be learned and Chinese capacity of that is major so
let's say it is/will get done.

Of course, anything made of matter can be seen. We're spotting
baryons between galaxies for Pete's sake! So that transparency
will differ from one composite to another usually still showing in
some rare radar bands to some degree.
EDIT

See Rule 1 of post 9735: Control of QUANTITY or radiators.

The more protruding structures you have in the radar stream, the higher total surface area.

But the number of radiators doesn't change between a delta with
canards and a traditional design with elevators on stabs, only the
position they're in. Ventral fins are an addition however if present.
End EDIT.
As for the detail, a very simple example of destructive interference
would be if the canards entirely hid a surface behind it as the flaps
be them leading edge or inboard or an elevator in a rare set-up.

Of course, as these surfaces move, this effect is rarely achieved and
the next moment goes full constructive so that, as in Gambit's plate
example, it can be counted out.

Now I'll go through the new pages, LOL and end up to this post
And ended up editing, facepalm ...

Good day to all, Tay

 

[Ultima Thule]

what do you mean by 'without'? its was designed as a canard config with TVC at the very begining of the competitions during 90s````serioulsy, what is your point?

I mean simple as that
Mirage-3

and this with canards

what do you mean by 'without'? its was designed as a canard config with TVC at the very begining of the competitions during 90s````serioulsy, what is your point?

If we remove CANARDS from J-20 without tvc engine, can J-20 maneuverable as with canards i assume its not

 

[Figaro]

Its garbage because its a russian website and what about american websites? What has Russia got to do with just one persons opinion. I think you need to closely follow the su-57 progress before passing away your judjement.

I'm sorry but Sputnik is not a reliable site ... I never said all Russian sites were like that. Sputnik cited this one guy for all their military articles ... they make it seem as if all Russian weapons are "wunderwaffe". In Sputnik's eyes, Russia's military is invincible ... granted, I've not seen too much of their reporting on China but the way they portray American weapons as somehow inferior to Russian ones

 

[gambit]

Actually, you can make structures out of radar transparent material as I'm sure you know, a complex affair however. You not only need to find or create a material with enough strength for the application along with the transparency but also to make it so it "fails" correctly.

Absorbers fall under Rule 3: Control of MODES of radiation.

When there is a reflected signal, that reflection is a behavior, or a mode. In school, examples are usually of a surface with infinite dimensions, but in the real world, any structure is a finite structure so when a signal finally leave that structure, the mode is diffraction. What absorbers does is alter the behaviors of the radar signal.

But the number of radiators doesn't change between a delta with canards and a traditional design with elevators on stabs, only the position they're in.

That -- the highlighted -- would fall under Rule 2: Control of ARRAY of radiators.

For example...Depending on the physical relationship between two structures, that relationship could produce an amplification of signal: corner reflector.

and canard is not the "major contributor" to radar reflections,...

Wrong. Since the canard is a major flight control structure, its size, position, and behaviors made it a major contributor to final RCS.

Final RCS is an average value AFTER all aspects -- viewing angles -- are completed. In this, the greater the quantity of radiators, the higher that average figure.

in terms of in head-on radar cross-section J-20 is quite close to F-22

So is the F-16.

 

[usmankhan9]

I'm sorry but Sputnik is not a reliable site ... I never said all Russian sites were like that. Sputnik cited this one guy for all their military articles ... they make it seem as if all Russian weapons are "wunderwaffe". In Sputnik's eyes, Russia's military is invincible ... granted, I've not seen too much of their reporting on China but the way they portray American weapons as somehow inferior to Russian ones

For years I've been reading articles from American and Russian sites but trust me when I say this sputnik is as reliable as they get. There are many other military/defence experts/analysts in sputnik especially western. There are dozens of articles and that only of this expert in which he tells which American weapon system has an edge or is at parity with the Russian counterpart. So please just compare one defence related article of national interest online with a sputnik article and you'll understand me

 

[ozranger]

I mean simple as that
Mirage-3
View attachment 430419
and this with canards
View attachment 430420


If we remove CANARDS from J-20 without tvc engine, can J-20 maneuverable as with canards i assume its not

Both TVC and canards provide pitch down force when in high angle of attack. Canards can generate lift, which is an advantage over TVC. Meanwhile, TVC can effectively pull the aircraft out of stall when some such critical situation happens, which would minimize pilots panic on possible stall when maneuvering. Both indirectly improve maneuverability over conventional configuration.

Practically they are not designed to make the aircraft turn faster with higher angular velocity. BTW canards can not be simply thought as "horizontal stabilizers relocated to the front" either.

TVC shouldn't be used for low speed tight turns as what was done by Indian pilots while confronting F-15 in exercise using their Su-35MKI, because it will bleed energy a lot and turn the aircraft into a kind of stationary target.

Pure delta configuration is not a good choice as it also bleeds energy a lot, ie. losing speed and/or altitude, especially when performing turns, due to its horrible lift characteristic. In that regard, J-20 without canards is unthinkable.

J-20 with TVC may not significantly improve its maneuverability or supersonic performance as canards already help, but it will minimize pilots panic on possible stalls and hence encourage them to push their maneuver to the edge.

 

[grey boy 2]

J-20 "78272"
Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.