F-22 vs J-20 - aka USA-made jet fighters vs China-made jet fighters

[jhungary]

I’m not saying F-22’s avionics design cannot perform its functions. I’m simply stating that J-20’s avionics are naturally more advanced, meaning better performance. Also F-22’s radar was developed with adversaries being mostly 4th gen fighters. The J-20 was developed with the F-22 and F-35 in mind, of course its radar would be more suited to detect stealth aircrafts than F-22’s radar.

My dates regarding the PC was incorrect.

This paragraph, especially the highlighted part is inheritably flaw.

Unless China can obtain actual data from F-22 or F-35, J-20 would not be design with that in mind, you may think you are, but there are no point of reference to even Fifth Generation Fighter in general for the Chinese to study to have been able to gear toward it. J-20 is the first Fifth Gen Aircraft Chinese are developing and still in development.

The best Chinese engineer can do is to estimate at what point F-22 and F-35 can function and I can almost certainly guarantee you that whatever the Chinese Engineer in mind, it is wrong.

You can claim the next Stealth Fighter Chinese are making is to counter Fifth Generation Fighter, because the Chinese would already have a mature Fifth Gen Fighter technology, or F-35 is designed to target fifth gen aircraft in mind, because by then the US had already have the F-22, but you cannot claim the J-20 is designed to target stealth aircraft, much less for counter specifically F-22 and F-35

 

[Pepsi Cola]

Your assumptions are not logical because you have a false understanding of what is 'advanced'.

Steel is not a more 'advanced' metal than pig iron. But a steel knife is.

Radar detection produces these target resolutions...

- Speed
- Altitude
- Heading
- Aspect angle

Let us take just altitude for now.

Within the target resolution of altitude, there is the target resolution of granularity:

the scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon.

Basically, when a target is at X altitude, how fine is the radar capability in displaying target altitude changes. Is it 10 meters? Or is it 1 meter? In other words, is the radar displaying only in 10 meters increment or in greater detail of 1 meter increment?

If the J-20 radar can track 10 targets at 10 meters altitude resolution and the F-22 radar can track only 8 targets but at 1 meter resolution, which is more 'advanced'?

A steel knife is a more advanced tool than of pig iron simply by virtue of material, but obsidian can be several HUNDRED times sharper than steel...And obsidian is older than steel...

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/health/surgery-scalpels-obsidian/index.html

So which is more 'advanced', the steel scalpel or the obsidian scalpel? Dr. Green is effectively saying that the obsidian scalpel cuts at the MOLECULAR level, a granularity that no steel scalpel can match.

The issue is not merely functionality but ALSO about the EFFICACY of those functions.

In combat, if the J-20 is designed as an interceptor as many believes, the quantity (10 targets) should take a higher priority over quality (10 meters resolution). For the F-22, it is reputed to be an aerial 'sniper', so emphasis was placed on quality (1 meter resolution) over quantity (8 targets). So which is more 'advanced'?

Yours is a grossly simplistic assumption that just because something is new, it must be 'better'.

Lmao. You're cherry picking these hypothetical examples that don't really mean anything. I'm basing my assumptions on Moore's Law, which basically is the gold standard for the tech industries. If you don't have any real science to base your assumptions then just go away and don't waste other people's time.

My assumptions are simplistic because there's no real data out there and everyone knows this. What I know though, is that all large tech companies including IBM, Intel ,and AMD follow Moore's Law and that even Top secret government agencies cannot go much beyond them.

You can claim the next Stealth Fighter Chinese are making is to counter Fifth Generation Fighter, because the Chinese would already have a mature Fifth Gen Fighter technology, or F-35 is designed to target fifth gen aircraft in mind, because by then the US had already have the F-22, but you cannot claim the J-20 is designed to target stealth aircraft, much less for counter specifically F-22 and F-35

I did not say that J-20 was designed to target other fifth gen fighters. I simply said that J-20s designers have these fifth gen fighters in mind. Calm down.

 

[jhungary]

I did not say that J-20 was designed to target other fifth gen fighters. I simply said that J-20s designers have these fifth gen fighters in mind. Calm down.

You said that J-20 is designed to target stealth better than aircraft like F-22

Also F-22’s radar was developed with adversaries being mostly 4th gen fighters. The J-20 was developed with the F-22 and F-35 in mind, of course its radar would be more suited to detect stealth aircrafts than F-22’s radar.

This argument is inheritably false even if you meant only Fifth Gen Aircraft, because when Chinese started designing (not making) J-20, there are no active fifth gen platform for China to make a reference point to design. The best is for China at that point is to design something that can overcome the existing platform, which is 4th generation aircraft, which is in turn what you said how F-22 was designed.

You cannot keep something in mind if you do not have a solid reference point, and at that point in time, China did not have access to F-22 technology, and no Fifth Generation Technology, which mean on the design basis, the level of sophistication is the same as F-22.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

You said that J-20 is designed to target stealth better than aircraft like F-22



This argument is inheritably false even if you meant only Fifth Gen Aircraft, because when Chinese started designing (not making) J-20, there are no active fifth gen platform for China to make a reference point to design. The best is for China at that point is to design something that can overcome the existing platform, which is 4th generation aircraft, which is in turn what you said how F-22 was designed.

You cannot keep something in mind if you do not have a solid reference point, and at that point in time, China did not have access to F-22 technology, and no Fifth Generation Technology, which mean on the design basis, the level of sophistication is the same as F-22.

I did not say that, please quote me.

More suited simply means that they would consider the stealth capability of F-22's stealth capability while designing the radar. Until now neither Russia or China have that "solid reference point" but they can design AA systems to counter them, maybe not to the fullest, but at least they're something. Stealth principles aren't really Top Secret science. Every knows that stealth can come from many features such as the airframe and the material. You don't need to access F-22's stealth technology to build a stealth plane either, I'm sure you know.

J-20's other capabilities such as the EOTS and EODAS also enhance that capability.

My argument, from the start, was based on Moore's Law. If you want to argue your point, please counter it.

Cherry picking what words I used incorrectly aren't going to change facts.

 

[gambit]

@gambit, I clearly said earlier your F-22 is the best, "the sexiest girl in town", so may you now please calm down and do not flame this Chinese J-20 thread at PDF (I don't mind if you want to do the same in the F-22 dedicated thread at PDF, if any).

And IF I have interests to find out more about the F-22 or any other USA systems, I will pay visit there by myself to find out!! But please do not bring them here! I have no interests to read about the American stuffs here!!! THAT'S WHY COLUMNS & THREADS are Created in any discussion, public boards, to cater various interests in their dedicated spots!!! Just do not mix them!!!

And btw, if you are so fond of convincing others of the F-22 superiority, why don't you just go to the SDF, there you may find lots of friends that love to engage in elaborate and lengthy exchanges with you. That's why it calls itself a Pro and regard here is a fans club. Please do your lengthy Pro talks there/SDF, exchanging with other Pros there.

Your persistent flaming of the Chinese threads at PDF has been very annoying and you have been a very bad guy here, an unwelcomed, a persona non grata character here.

And I don't care you've been here longer, your behaviour has been very provocative, TO FORCE FEED the many UNRELATED matters in this thread and others of This Column. DAMN IT!!!


For ALL OTHER MEMBERS here @Okarus @Gomig-21 and any one else, PLEASE don't invite/engage/reply... @gambit HERE, in the Chinese threads, just stay away from engaging this old man. It's sickening to watch him flaming the threads at this COLUMN!! If anyone loves to engage @gambit, PLEASE do so at the USA threads / COLUMN.

In essence, you are saying that on PDF, all Chinese claims about the J-20 are to be unchallenged. Anyone who does challenge is a troll. Got it...

I'm basing my assumptions on Moore's Law,...

Which does not mean anything.

I did not say that J-20 was designed to target other fifth gen fighters. I simply said that J-20s designers have these fifth gen fighters in mind. Calm down.

You are trying to make a difference without distinction.

I asked a simple question about radar target resolution. And you dodged.

The question is not one based on hypothesis but based upon known events. When the MIG-25 came out, statements were made about its radar, which was so powerful that it could 'burn-through' jamming. Technically, it was true. But realistically, the MIG-25's radar system was a POS. It could burn through jamming, but its target resolutions were so bad that all it could do was show the pilot the general direction/location of the target(s). No more. People ASSUMED that the four general target resolutions were given or taken for granted. They did not know that the MIG designers sacrifice those resolutions for sheer power. So just because the MIG-25's radar can achieve burn-through, does that make it more 'advanced' despite it cannot do anything else?

My question was a legitimate one because it demonstrate what everyone who have any military experience or involved in the defense industry knows: That just because something is newer in manufacture, it does not automatically translate to superiority.

And when ppl challenge his ridiculous claims with technical evidence,

Yet to see you done that. Or anyone in the Chinese camp, for that matter.

 

[jhungary]

I did not say that, please quote me.

More suited simply means that they would consider the stealth capability of F-22's stealth capability while designing the radar. Until now neither Russia or China have that "solid reference point" but they can design AA systems to counter them, maybe not to the fullest, but at least they're something. Stealth principles aren't really Top Secret science. Every knows that stealth can come from many features such as the airframe and the material. You don't need to access F-22's stealth technology to build a stealth plane either, I'm sure you know.

J-20's other capabilities such as the EOTS and EODAS also enhance that capability.

My argument, from the start, was based on Moore's Law. If you want to argue your point, please counter it.

Cherry picking what words I used incorrectly aren't going to change facts.

Well, you did said that, and you are even saying it now. You just try to spin, but even then, you didn't get far.

How you would know what F-22 Stealth Capability from to have that as a reference point to put it in design consideration? Have you have a confirmed radar contact sighting of F-22 with its full stealth potential display? Which mean have Chinese Airforce have any verified F-22 Radar contact within their radar with F-22 being in full stealth mode? You can't because unless PLAF encounter the F-22 in combat configuration (either PLAF engage in direct combat with F-22, or PLAN engage in indirect detection with F-22 in combat status like in Syria) The only other way you can get the a reference point is to obtain a operational F-22 and dissect it anyway you can.

Stealth principal is not exactly a Top Secret Receipt, but how much an aircraft can achieve in that spectrum is. And no, unless you have an actual object you can test, you cannot estimate how much sufficient or inefficient your own weapon can get against the other guy. I meant how do you know your product is better than a product with quality unknown?

Moore's Law only dictate how a transistor being build, that does not mean a transistor being build later is more advance than or in general better the one build before, that's depending on the design reference. And more importantly, Moore's law is not exactly and constantly observe anyway, look at how Intel design their microprocessor?

You want example? The easiest example is a comparation of this generation CPU/GPU and last generation CPU/GPU, let's take last generation Nvidia GeForce G980Ti and this generation GeForce 1070. While the die size of 980Ti is 601mm and 1070 s only 314mm (which is conform with Moore's law) 980Ti perform better than 1070 on any benchmark site you will see.

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

That is because the 1070 have a different design reference than 980Ti, even tho the former is made with more modern 16nm Fab and the latter is made with last gen 26nm fab. 980Ti perform better and more "Advance" than the 1070.

This is how design point affect the quality of product, independent from Moore's Law. Just because the method of making it is more advance (ie with a later technology) it does not mean the general capability is always better for it over other older technology.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

In essence, you are saying that on PDF, all Chinese claims about the J-20 are to be unchallenged. Anyone who does challenge is a troll. Got it...


Which does not mean anything.


You are trying to make a difference without distinction.

I asked a simple question about radar target resolution. And you dodged.

The question is not one based on hypothesis but based upon known events. When the MIG-25 came out, statements were made about its radar, which was so powerful that it could 'burn-through' jamming. Technically, it was true. But realistically, the MIG-25's radar system was a POS. It could burn through jamming, but its target resolutions were so bad that all it could do was show the pilot the general direction/location of the target(s). No more. People ASSUMED that the four general target resolutions were given or taken for granted. They did not know that the MIG designers sacrifice those resolutions for sheer power. So just because the MIG-25's radar can achieve burn-through, does that make it more 'advanced' despite it cannot do anything else?

My question was a legitimate one because it demonstrate what everyone who have any military experience or involved in the defense industry knows: That just because something is newer in manufacture, it does not automatically translate to superiority.


Yet to see you done that. Or anyone in the Chinese camp, for that matter.

I'm giving you scientific principles and all you can say is it doesn't mean anything? Hahaha. I'm going to give you Moore's Law explanation one more time, and that's it because every knows you're a waste of time.

"Moore's law suggests exponential growth. Thus, it is unlikely to continue indefinitely. Most experts expect Moore's law to hold for another two decades. Some studies have shown physical limitations could be reached by 2017.

The extension of Moore's law is that computers, machines that run on computers and computing power all become smaller and faster with time, as transistors on integrated circuits become more efficient. Transistors are simple electronic on/off switches embedded in microchips, processors and tiny electrical circuits. The faster microchips process electrical signals, the more efficient a computer becomes." (Investopedia)

This have to do with all electronic equipments on board the fighters.

You're asking for scientific knowledge that no one on this forum possesses. Of course I ignored it. Do you know it?

 

[Gomig-21]

That was a test jet in the vid. You can tell by the extended nose pitot/static probe. Of course the weapons launch sequence are going to be slower than expected.

Yeah that's true, it was the test version of the Raptor but it was really the only one available to see the sequence. So we must go by it. I could very well see that there are separate settings to control the doors only, and then control the missile bracket extraction itself separately and even control the speed on the bracket. I don't doubt that but like I said, it's practically the only one available that shows the entire sequence beside the firing since they don't show it all in sequence.

Am I sure? Yes, I am. I have friends in Nellis. I have seen the F-22 in actions the public do not get to see.

You've seen the F-22 fire a missile?

I've seen it at airshows maybe a total of 12 times and each time it does a minimum radius turn where it opens its doors for us viewers but that's about it. As a matter of fact, the below is a series of photos that I took in rapid succession that @VCheng was kind enough to put a GIF together using the pics.

So I can say I've seen the door-opening sequence many, many times and I'll say, it's pretty fast. But that doesn't tell us much about the timing of the missile bracket extraction and that's where I see a timing difference in favor of the J-20.

I do not expect anyone to take my word for it.

Well I've known you for what, almost 10 years now? And you've never lied about anything that I know of so yeah, I'll take your word. If you tell me you saw the entire sequence (including the firing of an AIM-9 or 120) and told me the time you thought it took, I'll take that at face value. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

So gimme the entire sequence time in your opinion, assuming you've seen the whole thing. I'll even take it if you tell me one of your friends at Nellis told you. I'm fine with that too. Then we can compare that with the hypothetical that the J-20 already has it's PL9 basically on a pylon.

As far as we are concerned, the only time it matters is in combat, but by then, it would be too late for the other guys.

But the same can be said about the J-20, especially with this feature.

Notches or not, maybe I missed the REAL images of the J-20 with the missile in that position. So far, all we have are either outright fakes or 'fanboy' versions.

Hahaha, that is true. We haven't really seen a real pic of the door closed over the missile. So yeah, we are being somewhat presumptive despite being able to pretty much give a very well-educated guess as to what those notches are for. There's another picture somewhere (I'll have to find it) of one of the J-20's in it's primed yellow configuration where you can get a really great shot of the side panel door and the notches. I'll try to look for it.

It maybe an engineering accomplishment, but is it TACTICALLY USEFUL ? I say its tactical utility is debatable at best.

Very fair and reasonable. That's why we're here.

Not really -- regarding the highlighted.

It is one thing to 'slave' the missile to the jet's radar, it is a far more difficult thing to transfer in real time the jet's radar information to the missile to the extent that as if the missile is 'seeing' with its own radar, except the jet's radar is larger and with more resolution. Essentially, the AIM-120 is 'seeing' without the need for being outside its weapons bay. That is the real advantage.

I don't think I have ever doubted that the data linkage between the Raptor's AN/APG-77 and in this case, I would have to say the AIM-9X and not the AIM-120 (right?) is quite possible unmatched in the world. And that really isn't being unfair to the J-20 because we just haven't seen enough missiles (if any) actually fired from its weapons bays or even a test video of the closed bay door over the extended missile, then we can only guess its effectiveness. I still maintain that it is a very functional design that has the strong potential to be advantageous simply because it eliminates the time of the bay door opening AND the missile extraction. That alone, if it saves 2 seconds could mean the difference between a first kill or first killed, regardless of the data linkage and radar and even missile prowess.

For ALL OTHER MEMBERS here @Okarus @Gomig-21 and any one else, PLEASE don't invite/engage/reply... @gambit HERE, in the Chinese threads, just stay away from engaging this old man. It's sickening to watch him flaming the threads at this COLUMN!! If anyone loves to engage @gambit, PLEASE do so at the USA threads / COLUMN.

well, I respectfully disagree, my friend. I think the basis of the entire discussion is the effectiveness of the J-20's side bay missile rack and door closing system which is different than the F-22 & F-35 and we're debating my personal and original point that not only does it seem to be a very well thought-out and engineered and executed design, I also gave the advantage to the J-20 over "American 5th gens" to which our friend disagrees and has the right to do so. And so far he's brought very decent counter arguments that I don't think are anywhere near what you suggested. Not everyone is going to agree on the same thing all the time. If that was the case, this would be the most boring world to live in.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

Well, you did said that, and you are even saying it now. You just try to spin, but even then, you didn't get far.

How you would know what F-22 Stealth Capability from to have that as a reference point to put it in design consideration? Have you have a confirmed radar contact sighting of F-22 with its full stealth potential display? Which mean have Chinese Airforce have any verified F-22 Radar contact within their radar with F-22 being in full stealth mode? You can't because unless PLAF encounter the F-22 in combat configuration (either PLAF engage in direct combat with F-22, or PLAN engage in indirect detection with F-22 in combat status like in Syria) The only other way you can get the a reference point is to obtain a operational F-22 and dissect it anyway you can.

Stealth principal is not exactly a Top Secret Receipt, but how much an aircraft can achieve in that spectrum is. And no, unless you have an actual object you can test, you cannot estimate how much sufficient or inefficient your own weapon can get against the other guy. I meant how do you know your product is better than a product with quality unknown?

Moore's Law only dictate how a transistor being build, that does not mean a transistor being build later is more advance than or in general better the one build before, that's depending on the design reference. And more importantly, Moore's law is not exactly and constantly observe anyway, look at how Intel design their microprocessor?

You want example? The easiest example is a comparation of this generation CPU/GPU and last generation CPU/GPU, let's take last generation Nvidia GeForce G980Ti and this generation GeForce 1070. While the die size of 980Ti is 601mm and 1070 s only 314mm (which is conform with Moore's law) 980Ti perform better than 1070 on any benchmark site you will see.

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

That is because the 1070 have a different design reference than 980Ti, even tho the former is made with more modern 16nm Fab and the latter is made with last gen 26nm fab. 980Ti perform better and more "Advance" than the 1070.

This is how design point affect the quality of product, independent from Moore's Law. Just because the method of making it is more advance (ie with a later technology) it does not mean the general capability is always better for it over other older technology.

Exactly, neither China nor Russia has

Well, you did said that, and you are even saying it now. You just try to spin, but even then, you didn't get far.

How you would know what F-22 Stealth Capability from to have that as a reference point to put it in design consideration? Have you have a confirmed radar contact sighting of F-22 with its full stealth potential display? Which mean have Chinese Airforce have any verified F-22 Radar contact within their radar with F-22 being in full stealth mode? You can't because unless PLAF encounter the F-22 in combat configuration (either PLAF engage in direct combat with F-22, or PLAN engage in indirect detection with F-22 in combat status like in Syria) The only other way you can get the a reference point is to obtain a operational F-22 and dissect it anyway you can.

Stealth principal is not exactly a Top Secret Receipt, but how much an aircraft can achieve in that spectrum is. And no, unless you have an actual object you can test, you cannot estimate how much sufficient or inefficient your own weapon can get against the other guy. I meant how do you know your product is better than a product with quality unknown?

Moore's Law only dictate how a transistor being build, that does not mean a transistor being build later is more advance than or in general better the one build before, that's depending on the design reference. And more importantly, Moore's law is not exactly and constantly observe anyway, look at how Intel design their microprocessor?

You want example? The easiest example is a comparation of this generation CPU/GPU and last generation CPU/GPU, let's take last generation Nvidia GeForce G980Ti and this generation GeForce 1070. While the die size of 980Ti is 601mm and 1070 s only 314mm (which is conform with Moore's law) 980Ti perform better than 1070 on any benchmark site you will see.

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

That is because the 1070 have a different design reference than 980Ti, even tho the former is made with more modern 16nm Fab and the latter is made with last gen 26nm fab. 980Ti perform better and more "Advance" than the 1070.

This is how design point affect the quality of product, independent from Moore's Law. Just because the method of making it is more advance (ie with a later technology) it does not mean the general capability is always better for it over other older technology.

I didn't spin anything. You're the one who's spinning it. I choose my words very carefully so if you can't quote me directly then I didn't say it. Simple.

I know that no one, including Russia and China have that "reference point". I've stated that myself. However, just because you don't have that specific reference point (radar signature) doesn't mean you can't do something against it. There are many AA systems designed to counter these stealth aircrafts, and although we do not know how effective they are against these systems, we do know that they are meant to do something that conventional AA systems cannot do. So "more suited" is appropriate.

You give me one example that don't really mean anything. Moore's Law is about a trend of exponential growth, exponential growth has it's limits, and we are reaching that limit. However, this does not defy the trend that we have observed in the past that follows this law.

"The extension of Moore's law is that computers, machines that run on computers and computing power all become smaller and faster with time, as transistors on integrated circuits become more efficient. Transistors are simple electronic on/off switches embedded in microchips, processors and tiny electrical circuits. The faster microchips process electrical signals, the more efficient a computer becomes."

I really don't know how can I be more clear than this. If a radar involves computing power then it follows Moore's law.

 

[jhungary]

Exactly, neither China nor Russia has


I didn't spin anything. You're the one who's spinning it. I choose my words very carefully so if you can't quote me directly then I didn't say it. Simple.

I know that no one, including Russia and China have that "reference point". I've stated that myself. However, just because you don't have that specific reference point (radar signature) doesn't mean you can't do something against it. There are many AA systems designed to counter these stealth aircrafts, and although we do not know how effective they are against these systems, we do know that they are meant to do something that conventional AA systems cannot do. So "more suited" is appropriate.

This is exactly the reason why you cannot do anything about it, because you do not have a physical reference.

Do tell me how these AA can know they can be used to target Stealth Fighter when in none of the development stage, production stage or trial stage have indeed be used to tackle a stealth fighter?

J-20 is like F-22, it is more suited to counter 4th generation aircraft because there are no starting point on stealth when China develop J-20, and that is beside the point where whether or not J-20 can be seen as a reference point on fifth generation aircraft alone could also be call into question. Let alone more suited than F-22 when the Chinese scientist would not possibly know the requirement of fifth generation aircraft in real world back when J-20 is still in the drawing board.

Just because it was meant to do something, does not mean they can actually do it. Without actual data to even test the trial or mock result, any stage in this development would not be said to have achieve that goal.

You give me one example that don't really mean anything. Moore's Law is about a trend of exponential growth, exponential growth has it's limits, and we are reaching that limit. However, this does not defy the trend that we have observed in the past that follows this law.

"The extension of Moore's law is that computers, machines that run on computers and computing power all become smaller and faster with time, as transistors on integrated circuits become more efficient. Transistors are simple electronic on/off switches embedded in microchips, processors and tiny electrical circuits. The faster microchips process electrical signals, the more efficient a computer becomes."

I really don't know how can I be more clear than this. If a radar involves computing power then it follows Moore's law.

There are many example, just CPU and GPU alone would have tenth if not hundred example. like how Intel i7 6950X is better than 7820X even the former is using LGA2011 and 7820X uses FGLA 2066, which is 1 generation behind.

Moore's Law only dictate "THE TECHNOLOGY" to make newer transistor is better, that does NOT automatically translated to all transistor made later are technologically better than the one before

 

[Gomig-21]

@gambit

here's that photo I was referring to in my previous post that @LKJ86 had originally posted. Take a look at the VERY 3 visible notches on the bottom of the side bay door and the smaller panels that fill-in those notches. Originally I thought that those smaller panels were separate doors which I thought complicated the entire mechanism of closing them and opening them etc.

Click to enlarge in high res for a clearer look.

But then this animation (also posted by @LKJ86) makes 100% sense that this is the reason for the application of the notches.

It makes total sense that this is what is going on and one cannot argue against it being a superbly brilliant design on top of the internal weapons bays. I don't see any other use or function for the notches and smaller panels. So I think it's safe to say that is what they're for.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

This is exactly the reason why you cannot do anything about it, because you do not have a physical reference.

Do tell me how these AA can know they can be used to target Stealth Fighter when in none of the development stage, production stage or trial stage have indeed be used to tackle a stealth fighter?

J-20 is like F-22, it is more suited to counter 4th generation aircraft because there are no starting point on stealth when China develop J-20, and that is beside the point where whether or not J-20 can be seen as a reference point on fifth generation aircraft alone could also be call into question. Let alone more suited than F-22 when the Chinese scientist would not possibly know the requirement of fifth generation aircraft in real world back when J-20 is still in the drawing board.

Just because it was meant to do something, does not mean they can actually do it. Without actual data to even test the trial or mock result, any stage in this development would not be said to have achieve that goal.


There are many example, just CPU and GPU alone would have tenth if not hundred example. like how Intel i7 6950X is better than 7820X even the former is using LGA2011 and 7820X uses FGLA 2066, which is 1 generation behind.

Moore's Law only dictate "THE TECHNOLOGY" to make newer transistor is better, that does NOT automatically translated to all transistor made later are technologically better than the one before

This is the most stupid thing I've heard. Everything follows physics, even if you can't have perfect reference you can still design counter systems. Do you think these AA and ABM all have adversaries's physical reference during development? No, they don't.

You don't need perfect reference to design counter systems.

How would J-20's designers not know fifth gen requirements when they are designing a fifth gen aircraft? Are you even serious? Of course they know the requirements, how else would they start designing?

"Advancements in digital electronics are strongly linked to Moore's law" (Wikipedia)

You're giving me all these newer and recent processors that already reaching the limits of Moore's Law. Moore's Law is about exponential growth. Exponential growth has limits. We are at that limit, however if you look back at the past (as in 5+ years before), you can see that Moore's Law still strongly links to advancement and performance of electronics.

 

[jhungary]

This is the most stupid thing I've heard. Everything follows physics, even if you can't have perfect reference you can still design counter systems. Do you think these AA and ABM all have adversaries's physical reference during development? No, they don't.

You don't need perfect reference to design counter systems.

How would J-20's designers not know fifth gen requirements when they are designing a fifth gen aircraft? Are you even serious? Of course they know the requirements, how else would they start designing?

I think you don't quite understand how stealth work.

Stealth is not being undetectable, rather, stealth work in hiding its signature with the background, which radar can detect it, but cannot pick up as a combat aircraft, or as the old saying goes, the best place to hide a tree is a forest.

The topic at hand have nothing to do with physics, because the way to detect stealth aircraft is the same, it have to do with how you can process the signal, which is the problem for mathematic. Radar can detect all aircraft, but how much it return to the radar is another matter altogether.

For example, to simplify, let's say there are 5 band of radar return in all flying object.

Band 1 : Small Bird (such as Sparrow)
Band 2 : Large Bird (such as Canadian Geese)
Band 3 : Small Aircraft (such as 2 seater cessna)
Band 4 : Military Aircraft (such as F-35)
Band 5 : Large Aircraft (such as B-52 or Boeing 747)

Now, stealth work by hiding your signature return and make your radar think its is a different band other than Band 4. Say a F-22 flying signature is equal to a small bird, which mean you have to tune your radar to locate every small bird in order to pick up a F-22

Problem is, at this stage, unless you are working in LM, you DO NOT KNOW what kind of Radar image F-22 return on a radar screen when they are in full stealth mode. Couple with the fact that there are 1600 different speices of bird and around 2 to 300 different type of aircraft, not know what the F-22 looks like in a radar screen would mean you cannot pick it up when you actually see it.

Radar design to pick up noise, and process it, but stealth design to fool it, if you do not know what is the parameter of what F-22 is like, or what other stealth aircraft is like, how can you say it is more suited than F-22?

Also, what you know in your parameter when you design a thing is one thing, what you ACTUALLY made is another. If you care to study what F-22 was to USAF as a Fifth Generation Aircraft Platform, you would find the two are VERY DIFFERENT. Even YF-22 and F-22 are two different aircraft, how can you say you "Know" what is the Parameter of 5th Generation when you design the first one yourself?

Also, whatever Chinese have in their menu is their own way to design 5th Gen Aircraft, what US did is different, and what is the rest of the world did is another different set of parameter. How can you say since Chinese design a 5th Gen Aircraft, then Chinese would UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE 5TH GEN AIRCRAFT SPECTRUM ACROSS THE WORLD? They aren't uniform, you know that, right?

"Advancements in digital electronics are strongly linked to Moore's law" (Wikipedia)

You're giving me all these newer and recent processors that already reaching the limits of Moore's Law. Moore's Law is about exponential growth. Exponential growth has limits. We are at that limit, however if you look back at the past (as in 5+ years before), you can see that Moore's Law still strongly links to advancement and performance of electronics.

How about an example from ~10 years ago?

1st Gen Clarkfield i7 (i7 870) would beat 2nd gen (sandy Bridge) i5 2300 in benchmark

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-870+@+2.93GHz
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2300+@+2.80GHz

I can give you any example in any year as long as there is a record for it on any benchmark site.

Again, Moore's Law only define the technology of making die would advance, not the die itself is a guarantee better than in the newer model.

 

[samsara]

In essence, you are saying that on PDF, all Chinese claims about the J-20 are to be unchallenged. Anyone who does challenge is a troll. Got it...
...

Your PERSISTENT, relentless posts here are what really annoying, you filled up this thread with your posts, not about the J-20. I can ignore your one or two posts voicing your opinions, just keep quiet and say nothing, but relentless bombardier??? Is this a THREAD about J-20 or F-22 ???

 

[yantong1980]

Your PERSISTENT, relentless posts here are what really annoying, you filled up this thread with your posts, not about the J-20. I can ignore your one or two posts voicing your opinions, just keep quiet and say nothing, but relentless bombardier??? Is this a THREAD about J-20 or F-22 ???

Just ignored them, they believe what they believe, so just agree for disagree. For long time I always curious why they always derailed good discussion into endless debate. Please continue...