Chinese delegation sent to Russia to discuss stealth fighter engine

[j20blackdragon]

Also let me quickly comment on thrust-to-weight ratio (TWR) because a lot of trolls have been trying to use that excuse to trash the J-20.

First, use some common sense. Why would the J-20 designers make something this big if they cared about TWR in the first place?

The answer is simple. The J-20 wasn't meant to dogfight. The J-20 is a large BVR missile truck with range and payload. Think of it like an interceptor. The large radar and large weapons bay will allow the J-20 to rain down PL-12s and devastate the opponent at BVR. No need to get close. Why would you want to sacrifice such a large, expensive aircraft like the J-20 in a dogfight in the first place? The whole point of stealth and 5th generation is to get the "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" advantage at BVR. And the J-20 excels at that.

But what if we need to get in close?

That's what the smaller and cheaper J-31 is for.

Take a good look at the picture above. If China is capable of powering the much larger J-11BS chase plane with the WS-10, why would we have trouble with the WS-13 for the much smaller J-31?

Lastly, the ideal situation is to not risk any pilots at all in a dogfight. And since we're already done with the J-20/J-31, you might be seeing this one next.

In the meantime, keep sucking on those sour grapes.

 

[ptldM3]

Already gave the explanation about intakes above. You are free to read again if you like.

you didn't explain anything, and in fact, you keep avoiding the subject. so once again, How are those channels any different from the J-20s intakes, which are themselves channels?

The pak-fa channels are for engine cooling, and considering they sit above the engine the channel is serpentine. According to the Chinese on this forum serpentine intakes are super duper stealthy.

As expected, we have now arrived at your last ditch effort by mentioning the canopy frame on the J-31 prototype. But the key word here is prototype.

the Chinese mocked the pak-fa's canopy from the first prototype, and since the J-31 appeared, suddenly, most Chinese started ignoring the J-31 canopy and causally started proclaiming the J-31 to be stealthy even though it has many feature that the Chinese claim kills stealth such as two piece canopy and uneven rear fuselage but now, we are told 'it's only the first prototype.

By the way that junk that is powered by 3 decades old soviet engines isn't going to kill the pak-fa, as you claim.

I've already anticipated this.

So I counter with the fact that the J-31 model has been shown in multiple airshows with a one-piece canopy. This will be the production version.

Stop posting the same pictures of plastic toys it just shows you are desperate.

For those that don't know, a canopy frame is undesirable because it forms a gap that is perpendicular to the direction of flight.

For those that don't know, you are an idiot a perpendicular line would be 90 degrees.

And this is the reason why it's so fun having a debate with Indian/Russian trolls about stealth aircraft. At the end of the day, China still wins because the J-20/J-31 hi-lo combination will beat the PAK FA every time. We've already designed two stealth fighters on our own and Russia can't even do a single one correctly with Indian funding.

How can you call other people trolls when you are the one that is the instigator, the one that stoops to new lows every time you derail a thread where you post inflammatory comments about the pak-fa. The troll is you.


Now moving on, both Chinese fighters have No Visible IR sensors, at best average maneuverability, limited situational awareness and you expect both fighters to get close enough to the pak-fa to get a missile lock and fire those missiles within the missiles range. Fanboy delusion, the pak-fa is equipped with IR sensors, meaning it will probably detect those fighters IR signature before the latter detect the pak-fa. The pak-fa has multiple radars meaning its situational awareness would be superior to both j-31 and J-20 which are handicapped by their limited radar scanning and if either Chinese aircraft get into a turning fight with the pak-fa both would get curb stomped.

 

[gambit]

it's just another kind of "canard" and lack of the correct angle against the body, its surface is perpendicular to the body when it is at standing position. and it will block the airflow when mechanical failed ---- no one can 100% guarantee it will not happen.

Dont read too much with your limited IQ which even cannot understand a simple science analogy.

See YOUR illustration here...???

I understand exactly what you were trying to say with that 'Giant canard' labeling. You ain't that clever, son.

There are four obvious things about you:

- Weak English
- No military experience
- No aviation experience
- Arrogance

The last three items are common to all the Chinese members here.

Regarding that 'Giant canard' label, what you were trying to argue was just flat out wrong and I was having fun at your expense when I teased you about it. Yes, it does not matter if you call that structure a 'canard' or a 'wing' or even a 'cockpit'. It is a structure and under radar bombardment, it becomes a radiator. But my teasing you was meant to be a lesson in that English is the dominant language in science, technology, and engineering, and if your English is weak, do not engage in debating things that you have no experience with. In the end, you WILL end up looking foolish.

If you want to point out that the wing is physically larger than the canard, use the appropriate labels. Do not try to be cute. The reality is that the canard IS a wing, of sort. Same as fixed fins that assist in creating axis stability. The canard, just like the wing or the vertical stabilator, is a flight control structure or element. It protrudes into the airstream and affect overall aerodynamic stability.

Now regarding RCS...

Radar Cross Section

• Raleigh region. If the target is a lot smaller than the wavelength of the radar system, the target is said to be in the Raleigh region. If the target is in the Raleigh region, the radar cross section of the target tends to be smaller than the target's physical size.

• Resonance region. If the target is of similar dimension to that of the wavelength, the target is said to be in the resonance region. In the resonance region, the radar cross section of the target may vary a great deal but tends to be larger than the physical size of the target.

• Optical region. The optical region occurs when the target is much larger than the operating wavelength of the radar. This is quite often the case with operational radar systems whose wavelengths are normally in the order of centimetres in length. When operating in this region, the radar cross section of the target is similar to its physical size.

All three of the above are applicable to measure standalone structures removed from a complex body, or to measure the entire complex body itself. The optical region is usually the one of interest because most of the world's radar operating freq is centimetric while their targets have physical dimensions much larger such as the Boeing 747 where fuselage length is about 70 meters.

I explained the basics of the RCS control process here...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 2

- Quantity of radiators
On an aircraft, ANYTHING is a radiator under radar bombardment.

- Modes of radiation
On any body, from a simple sphere to a complex body like an aircraft, shape equals to how EM radiation leave that structure.

- Array of radiators
On any structure, orientation to incoming signal also equals to how EM radiation leave that structure and this is compounded when there are many structures in close proximity to each other.

Effective control of all three item is crucial to control of total RCS. Not reduction but control because reduction falls under control.

What make the J-20's canards suspicious to aviation experts everywhere falls under item 'Array of radiators'. Not the canard itself as a standalone structure but the canards ON THE J-20. Do you understand?

On a complex body, the greater the protrusion of a contributing member into free space, meaning more of it is exposed to the incoming wave, the greater its prominence under data analysis. That is why the first control rule is to control the 'Quantity of radiators'. If you must have a certain structure, meaning you cannot fly without it, then you must apply the next two control rules.

The F-22's wings were precisely designed in terms of shape, dimensions, and relationship to nearby structures such as fuselage and rear horizontal stabs. The canards on the J-20 are suspicious precisely because of what they are supposed to do. If you change its shape and/or dimensions in anyway, you affect its contributions to aircraft lift and maneuverability. Chinese aerodynamic experts on the J-20 know this. So do aerodynamic experts around the world.

The B-2's design as a flying wing allows the exclusion of the vertical stabs, which reduces overall RCS under the rules control of 'Quantity of radiators' and 'Array of radiators'.

The F-22's design as an agile fighter necessitate the inclusion of the vertical stabs, which increases overall RCS under the rules control of 'Quantity of radiators' and 'Array of radiators'.

The J-20's design as an agile fighter necessitate the inclusion of the canards, which aviation experts believes will increase overall RCS under the rules control of 'Quantity of radiators' and 'Array of radiators'. Not counting the vertical stabs and the ventral fins, which also falls under the same rules.

That is why it is ridiculous for you to compare the J-20's 'Small canard' against the F-22's 'Giant canard' and that was why I made fun of you. Look at your own illustration. The F-22 is clearly the superior complex body in terms of those three control rules.

But hey...This is real physics but the J-20 falls under 'Chinese physics' here...

 

[j20blackdragon]

The Russian fanboys here are hilarious.

I'm not going to repeat myself and argue in circles when I've already addressed the issue about inlets. If the Russians here want to believe that gaps around the inlets, exposed compressor faces, and large cavities at the base of the vertical stabilizers are stealthy, they can believe whatever they want.

I can't stop people from believing in a fiction.

But I can continue to trash the PAK FA with real physics, because you guys are asking for it.

The next stealth topic I will use to trash the PAK FA is panel edge alignment.

And the best way to begin is to look at a picture of the underside of an unpainted F-22:

The features to focus on are the leading and trailing edges of the weapons bay doors, landing gear doors, various panels, and the many gaps/seams/joins that are naturally found on the airframe of all aircraft. Notice that on the F-22 every gap/seam/join is canted at an angle, or have a zig-zag pattern. In fact, you won't find a single gap/seam/join on the F-22 that is perpendicular to the direction of flight.

This is done for the same reason as planform alignment.

The leading and trailing edges of all gaps/seams/joins on an aircraft are good radar reflectors just like the leading and trailing edges of the main wings or the horizontal stabilizers. The edges are angled to reflect radar away from the direction of flight because frontal RCS is most important for obvious reasons. Any radar energy that is going off at an angle isn't going back to the energy radar located in front of you. That's the whole point of edge alignment.

Now here is the lower fuselage of the PAK FA.

Notice anything different?

I now have a game for you guys to play. Try to spot as many gaps/seams/joins as possible that are perpendicular to the direction of flight.

I'll begin with this.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Here, I'll even post a big hi-res shot of the PAK FA's lower fuselage so you can spot the many imperfections.

Have fun.

 

[ptldM3]

The Russian fanboys here are hilarious.

I'm not going to repeat myself and argue in circles when I've already addressed the issue about inlets. If the Russians here want to believe that gaps around the inlets, exposed compressor faces, and large cavities at the base of the vertical stabilizers are stealthy, they can believe whatever they want.

In other words you just stumbled over your own words and now you refuse to answer my question because you are unable so once again, how are the pack-fa inlet channels any different from the J-20 inlet channels?

Now to address your other points, since you like to talk about cavities, take a look at the cavity in-between the J-20s engine, also notice the two corner reflectors on the inside of the nozzles.

And if I were you I would worry about the J-20s ventral fins, lower round chin, warts under the wings and concave reflectors.

But I can continue to trash the PAK FA with real physics, because you guys are asking for it.

The only thing you have trashed is your reputation, not that you ever had one to begin with. Calling the Pak-fa's canopy seam perpendicular to flight isn't physics but a sign of intellectual inferiority considering a perpendicular line is 90 degrees

Instead of faking you know anything about physics try to go back to school, earning 50 cents per post is no way to live life.

The next stealth topic I will use to trash the PAK FA is panel edge alignment.

Again, you only trash yourself. The J-20 has engines that are perpendicular, which is a violation of this rule.

And the best way to begin is to look at a picture of the underside of an unpainted F-22:



The features to focus on are the leading and trailing edges of the weapons bay doors, landing gear doors, various panels, and the many gaps/seams/joins that are naturally found on the airframe of all aircraft. Notice that on the F-22 every gap/seam/join is canted at an angle, or have a zig-zag pattern. In fact, you won't find a single gap/seam/join on the F-22 that is perpendicular to the direction of flight.

This is done for the same reason as planform alignment.

Take a look at the J-20s leading edge root extensions, they are violation of platform alignment. They are curved.

Notice anything different?

yes, you just earned 50 cents and made a fool out of yourself in the process.

I now have a game for you guys to play. Try to spot as many gaps/seams/joins as possible that are perpendicular to the direction of flight.

I have a different game for you. Try to figure out why the J-20 uses ventral fins and has to have such oversized lumps under the wings.

 

[zzzz]

I have a different game for you. Try to figure out why the J-20 uses ventral fins and has to have such oversized lumps under the wings.

Those things are like 16 IRSTs combined together

 

[gambit]

Is that gent on the left wearing a hat/cap? That is stupid -- Foreign Object Damage (FOD). I hope not.

 

[PurpleButcher]

Is that gent on the left wearing a hat/cap? That is stupid -- Foreign Object Damage (FOD). I hope not.

It can be his hairstyle how are you so sure ?

P.S. just trying to lighten the mood

 

[longlong]

See YOUR illustration here...???



There are four obvious things about you:

- Weak English
- No military experience
- No aviation experience
- Arrogance

The last three items are common to all the Chinese members here.

Thanks for caring all Chinese poster so much and writing super long messy stuff.
You are anti-Chinese or Chinese-hater, but you are living on that. You spent a lot of time on this forum to fa*t any improvement about China ---- you will don't know how to go through your retiree without hating Chinese.
You think your nation is victim of China in history or present, you're wrong. Look at Europe and Africa, no small nation/race can survive longer than 300 years. Many small nations survived thousands of years only around China: Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia.....

You should not exist without protection from Chinese....you hate it, but it's real.

See YOUR illustration here...???

Yes, it does not matter if you call that structure a 'canard' or a 'wing' or even a 'cockpit'.

Finally, you got it! Why a toy can talk in a hollywood movie.

See YOUR illustration here...???



- Quantity of radiators
On an aircraft, ANYTHING is a radiator under radar bombardment.
...

Don't repeat fa*t in the lift anytime you stepped in.
Your knowledge of stealth is F-22's generation old, you're behind of the age 20years already, retiree!

What make the J-20's canards suspicious to aviation experts everywhere falls under item 'Array of radiators'.

What experts? From F-22/35 design team? Or just some funboy like you who is a google expert on keyboard?

The forum should belong to young man, we have a lot time to learn...you don't have.

You old guys are better just sit before the computer click and browse, don't talk.
Your memories and experice are stopping innovation and creative.

Go, go, go outdoor with your friends....what? You don't have any close friend in real life?

 

[MilSpec]

Is this the best you can come up with?

J-20 will be have an advanced AESA radar, other cutting edge avionics and is designed for be very manoeuvrable due to it's canards and almost certain thrust-vector production engines.

The US will be getting some serious competition from China that it has lacked before.

Nothing but the F-22 can go head-to-head against the J-20. All other aircraft will be wiped out of the sky.

ha ha ha ... all these sweeping statements without any data.... hold on to your roshogullas, let the specs come out for J20 and Pakfa, and later go into swashbuckling mode....

 

[longlong]

In other words you just stumbled over your own words and now you refuse to answer my question because you are unable so once again, how are the pack-fa inlet channels any different from the J-20 inlet channels?

Now to address your other points, since you like to talk about cavities, take a look at the cavity in-between the J-20s engine, also notice the two corner reflectors on the inside of the nozzles.

And if I were you I would worry about the J-20s ventral fins, lower round chin, warts under the wings and concave reflectors.







The only thing you have trashed is your reputation, not that you ever had one to begin with. Calling the Pak-fa's canopy seam perpendicular to flight isn't physics but a sign of intellectual inferiority considering a perpendicular line is 90 degrees

Instead of faking you know anything about physics try to go back to school, earning 50 cents per post is no way to live life.






Again, you only trash yourself. The J-20 has engines that are perpendicular, which is a violation of this rule.







Take a look at the J-20s leading edge root extensions, they are violation of platform alignment. They are curved.







yes, you just earned 50 cents and made a fool out of yourself in the process.






I have a different game for you. Try to figure out why the J-20 uses ventral fins and has to have such oversized lumps under the wings.

 

[ptldM3]

If you disagree with my points challenge them, posting silly photoshop images just illustrates your ignorance. But I'm being too kind since you have shown ignorance many times over by refusing to provide sources for your claims. You have fabricated false claims about radar mapping, and then you made an illustration claiming the F-22 has giant canards.

 

[j20blackdragon]

The Russian fanboys keep coming back for more punishment and I'll deliver.

This is extremely unstealthy.

 

[longlong]

If you disagree with my points challenge them, posting silly photoshop images just illustrates your ignorance. But I'm being too kind since you have shown ignorance many times over by refusing to provide sources for your claims. You have fabricated false claims about radar mapping, and then you made an illustration claiming the F-22 has giant canards.

1) Don't follow the old man slow pace. I thought you're educated and differed from the maintenance technician. You should understand why I called F-22 has a giant canard, that a simple science analogy which is common in universtiy books.
2) Regarding the 3D imaging radar, here is a clue in Chinse, you may have a look through google translate. It did not talk too much, for it is high classfied as per I said. I did not make story here.

中国在国际上首次实现雷达目标三维高分辨率成像_军事频道_凤凰网

3) The photoshop works, for we understanding T-50's stealth estimation (only by bare eyes).As per I said, It will not mean T-50 is not a great aircraft. Since next gen fighter haven't been checked in the real war.