Russian media:J20's stealth capability is far better than F-35 and pakfa

[giant panda]

The J-20, China's fifth-generation stealth fighter, is able to penetrate US air defense systems, according to a report from Russia's Military Analysis.

The report said that the stealth technology used by the J-20 is very similar to that used by the American F-22A. Its stealth capability is far better than the F-35 and even the Russian-built PAK FA fighter, it said. Considered a fighter-bomber similar to the US F-111 of the Cold War ear, the J-20's range would enable it to reach the Pacific second island chain of the Philippines and Guam. With mid-air refueling it could be extended further.

The J-20 already boasts better aerodynamic performance than the F-35, F-18A and F-18E/F currently used by the various branches of the US armed forces. The report said that between 400 and 500 J-20 aircraft will be produced to replace the Su-27SK and Su-33MKK currently deployed by the PLA Air Force.

russian link: Предварительная оценка прототипа малозаметного китайского истребителя Chengdu J-XX [J-20] » Военное обозрение

Технические замечания по конструкции прототипа
J-XX/J-20 является тяжелым истребителем, сравнимым по размерам с F-111. Первый образец обладает большим треугольным крылом по схеме "утка" с положительным углом поперечного ВЭ, с парой наклоненного наружу/назад поворотного вертикального/горизонтального хвостового оперения и парой похожих больших скошенных передних поворотных закрылков, которые если останутся на серийном самолете то наряду с хвостовым оперением обеспечат самолету весьма продвинутые возможности в области управляемости и маневренности. Несомненно, что такая конфигурация предназначена для обеспечения хорошей устойчивости на сверхзвуковом режиме с подходящим типом двигателя, а также обеспечит хорошие маневренные характеристики на транс-и сверхзвуковых режимах.

Без сомнения форма малозаметности значительно лучше, чем на российском прототипе Т-50 ПАК ФА и тем более лучше чем на запускаемом в производство F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Конструкция J-XX/J-20 по-видимому в значительной степени была основана на правилах формирования малозаметности F-22A Raptor:

Носовая секция китайского J-XX/J-20 и форма фонаря близки по внешнему виду к F-22, обеспечивая схожую сигнатуру уже проверенной конструкции.

Трапециевидные кромки воздухозаборников двигателей J-XX/J-20 похожи на F-22, хотя и кажутся большими и напоминающими стиль DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) F-35, очевидно направленные ​​на уменьшение заметности кромок воздухозаборников стиля F-22.

Имеющая решающее значение для малозаметности форма крепления крыльев к фюзеляжу J-XX/J-20 очень похожа на F-22 и явно превосходит российский прототип Т-50 ПАК ФА и американский истребитель F -35 Joint Strike.(english The report said that the stealth technology used by the J-20 is very similar to that used by the American F-22A.Its stealth capability is far better than the F-35 and even the Russian-built PAK FA fighter,)

Плоская нижняя часть фюзеляжа J-XX/J-20 является оптимальной для всех аспектов широкополосной малозаметности и тесно имитирует дизайн F-22.

Форма крыла в плане J-XX/J-20 показывает точное угловое выравнивание между передней кромкой горизонтального оперения и пеpедней кpомкой крыла и точное пересеченное угловое выравнивание края между задней кромкой горизонтального оперения и задней кpомкой крыла. Стреловидность передней кромки крыла составляет ~ 43°, что явно предназначено для эффективного сверхзвукового полета.

При создании носовых и основных створок шасси J-XX/J-20 использовалась оптимизированная для Х-диапазона зубчатая технология кромки, основанная на конструкции F-117A и F-22.

Кормовая часть фюзеляжа, хвостовые балки, стабилизаторы/ ребра, асимметричные сопла, не совместимых с эффективной малозаметностью, но могут служить лишь промежуточным решением для ускорения летных испытаний прототипа.

Конфигурация планера и формы кормы фюзеляжа соответствует стилю конструкции сопла с изменяемым вектором тяги F-22A или прямоугольного сопла предназначенного для контролируемой модели инфракрасного излучения и радиочастотной скрытности.

Конфигурация планера совместима с подфизюляжным, подкрыльным и размещением оружия во внутренних отсеках и является достаточно большой, чтобы соответствовать или в той или иной степени превосходить внутреннюю полезную нагрузку F-22A Raptor.

Объем размещаемого внутри самолета топлива также может оказаться высоким учитывая конфигурацию фюзеляжа и большие внутренние объемы треугольных крылев. Это свидетельствует о намерении обеспечить возможности устойчивого сверхзвукового крейсерского полета.

Китайцы не раскрывают тип двигателя. Существует мнение, что используются российские сверхзвуковые двигатели серии 117С, хотя с учетом общей эффективности аэродинамики самолета, их, скорее всего, будет недостаточно чтобы использовать весь потенциал этого современного планера.

Набор внутренних датчиков остается неизвестен. Китай до сих пор не продемонстрировал радар АФАР или продвинутую систему определения местоположения излучающих РЭС. Тем не менее, они могут стать доступны к моменту поступления планера на производство. Соответствующее российское оборудование в настоящее время находится на стадии разработки и/ или испытаний.

 

[Martian2]

I have been making the same claim with my analyses during the past year.

----------

From my July 9, 2012 post:

JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) is inferior to J-20 Mighty Dragon

1. JSF does not have supercruise capability.

2. JSF is not an all-aspect stealth fighter. It has less-stealthy LOAN (low observable asymmetric nozzle) nozzles. The flat nozzles on the F-22 are the best design for radar and infrared stealth.

The J-20 is likely to install flat nozzles when the powerful WS-15 engine is ready, because it is the only feature where it is clearly inferior to the F-22.

3. JSF has bumps along its entire bottom. There is also a large protrusion above the left airduct for the cannon on the F-35A, which makes it less stealthy.

4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.

5. The combat radius is only half of the J-20.

6. JSF lacks internal side weapon bays.

7. The JSF is significantly smaller in physical size and can only carry a much smaller radar with less T/R (transmit/receive) modules. Since it has only one engine, the available power to the radar is also significantly less.

The JSF radar is clearly inferior to the F-22 and a J-20 equipped with AESA radar.

8. The J-20 will be able to look down and shoot missiles (with better kinematics or more kinetic energy) at the lower flying F-35. The service ceiling of the J-20 is 65,617 ft. It is only 60,000 ft. for the F-35.

In conclusion, the JSF is no match for the J-20. The battle plan is for the F-22 to engage the J-20. However, there are only 187 F-22s. The military balance may shift if China produces 300 or more J-20s in the future (circa 2018).

Sensor fusion doesn't mean much when the J-20 has a larger radar and greater detection range than the F-35. Furthermore, the J-20 has a cleaner design and is stealthier than the F-35. Sending a F-35 against the J-20 is unwise.

-----


Latest J-20 "2002" Mighty Dragon photographs

Notice the gold transparent RAM on the J-20 cockpit canopy. Only China and the U.S. have this advanced material science technology.

The prominent DSI (diverterless supersonic inlet) strake was probably extensively modeled with Chinese supercomputers.

When the WS-15 engine is ready in a few years, China can replace the J-20 LOAN nozzles with flat nozzles. The J-20 will be good to go against the F-22.

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]

----------

From my March 14, 2012 post:

Su-30 is not stealthy. Therefore T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.

Everyone agrees the Su-30 is not stealthy. In the following picture, I have identified 10 important non-stealth features of the Su-30. Interestingly, the T-50/Pak-Fa has the exact same 10 non-stealth features.

It seems to me there are only two logical choices. Either you agree with me that the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. Or you can make the incredible claim that both the T-50 and Su-30 are stealthy. I leave the choice to you.

Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.

In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.

 

[thesaltpit]

The J-20 looks quite good, however the biggest point (quite literally) is the size. It is enormous and looks no where near as aerodynamically efficient as the F-22. It's more of a tactical bomber than a front-line fighter which can carry out CAP ops.

 

[A.Rafay]

 

[anon45]

Because they would have information on the F-22 and F-35's capabilities right?

Is there an english version of the site? Better yet is there a named official or is this all anonymous?

edit:
Oh god just read the translated version, the writer?....


FRIGGIN CARLO KOPP

This guy is a known hack, and Australian, unaffiliated with anything having to do with Russian military analysis.

If thats not bad enough the 'sources' for his information? "There can be no doubt" "It is Obvious", and my favorite, "any comparisons are simply absurd"

 

[Vassnti]

Носовая секция китайского J-XX/J-20 и форма фонаря близки по внешнему виду к F-22, обеспечивая схожую сигнатуру уже проверенной конструкции.

:ROFL

So he looked at a couple of pictures and thought the nose looked similar so the stealth capabilities must be the same
Sorry Anon a single palm is not nearly sufficient.

 

[amalakas]

Because they would have information on the F-22 and F-35's capabilities right?

Is there an english version of the site? Better yet is there a named official or is this all anonymous?

edit:
Oh god just read the translated version, the writer?....


FRIGGIN CARLO KOPP

This guy is a known hack, and Australian, unaffiliated with anything having to do with Russian military analysis.

If thats not bad enough the 'sources' for his information? "There can be no doubt" "It is Obvious", and my favorite, "any comparisons are simply absurd"

It is their standard evaluation. Everything new that comes out is better than the F-35. Personally I don't like the F-35, but I think a pattern is emerging with APA.

 

[ptldM3]

First Russian media is garbage that can not be trusted than when it suits Chinese agenda’s it’s credible--of course.

Su-30 is not stealthy. Therefore T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.

Everyone agrees the Su-30 is not stealthy. In the following picture, I have identified 10 important non-stealth features of the Su-30. Interestingly, the T-50/Pak-Fa has the exact same 10 non-stealth features.

It seems to me there are only two logical choices. Either you agree with me that the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. Or you can make the incredible claim that both the T-50 and Su-30 are stealthy. I leave the choice to you.

Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.

In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.

Give it a rest and stop pounding your chest with the same fan boys claims. The SU-30 is not the pak-fa. Most of those features are ridiculous, and many can be found on the J-20 as well.

Interesting how you claim a round shape reflects radar, also interesting that the J-20 has round nozzles. vents do not increase RCS, there is no scientific basis for that claim, the YF-23 had vents, the F-117 had vents.

And stop with the same ‘metal frame’ garbage. A metal frame in the canopy does not increase RCS. It is an additional discontinuity, similar how the J-20’s airbrake is a discontinuity.

I also fail to see how the pak-fa has the ‘same round and tall SU-30 fuselage‘. It’s not round firstly, secondly it is nothing alike to the SU-30’s fuselage. I would like for you to support your claim with a source. What ‘stealthy principle does the fuselage violate? Just so you know the YF-23 had a similar bump behind the canopy, it also had a two piece canopy, and it compressor blades were even visible from certain angles, yet it had a small RCS than the YF22.

As for the uneven lower fuselage, I doubt that you even know what principle that falls under. The reason some people criticize the fuselage is because it may be a corner reflector--than again you did not know that. The J-20’s tail fins are also present corner reflectors, as is the areas between the intake and fuselage--again you did not know this. So while the uneven fuselage may present a corner reflector, there is nothing suggesting that it would be a corner reflector that would have a high enough intensity to do anything of significance. Lets me put it this way, it would only present itself at a very limited angle, if it does present itself the corner reflector may be too weak to do anything. And this is if we give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the pak-fa flies right into a radar network which is not how missions are conducted. And you did not know this either.

 

[ptldM3]

4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.

Post a source for that claim last time i checked the F-35's materials were the most advanced materials available, and they were very expensive, the only reason that the materials came out to be 'cheap' was because the manufacturing process reduced the price.

Than again i mentioned this to you before, and you still dishonestly stand by the same claim for which you have no factual basis. It's just something you made up just like you have made up many tall claims about the pak-fa.


Be, careful making claims. We can also make claims about th J-20 and its canards, nozzles, tail fins, concave surfaces, and 'bumps'.

 

[ptldM3]

Any proof?

Some random Russian webpage that copies Copp's verbal spewage is the proof. This is the same guy that claimed that the SU-35 is beter than the F-35, so if the pak-fa is a quanum leap over the SU-35, than where does that put the J-20? According to him the maneuverability and 'kenetics' from the SU-35 can defeate the F-35.

 

[Martian2]

Post a source for that claim last time i checked the F-35's materials were the most advanced materials available, and they were very expensive, the only reason that the materials came out to be 'cheap' was because the manufacturing process reduced the price.

Than again i mentioned this to you before, and you still dishonestly stand by the same claim for which you have no factual basis. It's just something you made up just like you have made up many tall claims about the pak-fa.


Be, careful making claims. We can also make claims about th J-20 and its canards, nozzles, tail fins, concave surfaces, and 'bumps'.

Is it not obvious that a $100 million F-35 is cheaper than a $300 million F-22?

You must be retarded.

It is common knowledge the F-22 costs about $250 to $400 million per plane. The somewhat smaller F-35 only costs about $100 million per plane. Any idiot can readily conclude that a $100 million F-35 plane is made of cheaper materials than a far more stealthy $300 million F-22.

For example, do you need me to provide you with a citation for the F-22's complex multi-layered stealthy 600-pound applied-coat outer skin? The F-35 does not have this F-22 feature. Instead, the F-35 has a cheaper and less stealthy outer skin. This is common knowledge.

Has it occurred to your stupid brain that if the F-35 is made of the same quality materials as the F-22 then it should be just as stealthy as the F-22 (which the F-35 is not)?

I don't understand how you can be so stupid. Isn't it widely known that a $10,000 Russian Lada is made of cheaper materials than a $30,000 Mercedes Benz?

----------

An older citation from Popular Science (a mainstream publication), but it proves the F-35 was designed to use cheaper materials that lead to a higher RCS.

http://www.popsci.com/military-avia...-02/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-and-f-22-raptor

" F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor
What's the difference between the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor?
Posted 02.28.2003

The two aircraft are indeed difficult to tell apart, because they share similar wing and tail designs, as well as distinctive engine inlets beneath the cockpit. The differences are in capabilities, performance and materials.

The F-22 Raptor, designed for the United States Air Force, is a twin-engine fighter intended primarily for air-to-air combat but also capable of attacking ground targets. It will be the stealthiest aircraft ever; thanks to new low-radar-observable designs and materials, engineers were able to lose the all-black, oddly shaped configurations of the F-117 Stealth Fighter and B-2 Bomber in favor of a more conventional design.

The Raptor, which should enter service in 2005, also features supercruise, the ability to sustain supersonic flight without the use of fuel-gulping afterburners.

The Joint Strike Fighter, meanwhile, is being developed in three different versions -- for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. Expected to debut in 2009, it's a single-engine aircraft that is optimized for ground attack. (The Marine Corps' version will have vertical-lift capability, so it will be able to take off and land in extremely tight spaces.)

Another key difference: cost. The Joint Strike Fighter has a $35 million price tag, while the faster, stealthier Raptor will set the Air Force back $120 million apiece. In combat, though, the two won't be so far apart. Future scenarios envision them working in tandem: The Raptor will knock down the door -- taking out air defenses and radar sites -- and then the Joint Strike Fighter will launch strikes against ground targets."

----------

Feel free to read the primary sources in the footnotes of the following citation.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[210] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[211] The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.[211] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[212] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[213][214]"

----------

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/22-fighter-pilots-battle-mysterious-raptor-cough/story?id=16303962

"abcnews.go.com › Investigative Unit
May 9, 2012 – Last year the Air Force grounded the full fleet of F-22s, which cost U.S. taxpayers more than an estimated $420 million each, for nearly five ..."

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012...f-f-35-that-canada-and-others-are-purchasing/

"Mar 30, 2012 – The Canadian government continues to quote a figure of $75 million per F-35A. This figure is the “unit recurring flyaway cost” (URFC) of the ..."

 

[ptldM3]

Is it not obvious that a $100 million F-35 is cheaper than a $300 million F-22? You must be retarded.

So what does the price disparity between the F-35 and F22 have to do with materials? Or their effect on stealth? And The F-35 is 197-237 million depending on model, and the F-22 is 150 million, those are official number, so who is the retard

It is common knowledge the F-22 costs about $250 to $400 million per plane. The somewhat smaller F-35 only costs about $100 million per plane.

It’s common knowledge that you make crap up. Try something official like this:


http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf


http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf

Any idiot can readily conclude that a $100 million F-35 plane is made of cheaper materials than a far more stealthy $300 million F-22.

Any idiot can see that you make up random numbers just like you make up random claims about the pak-fa and F-35. The F-35 uses very expensive materials, and has it ever occurred to you that the F-22 has 2 engines instead of one? Has thrust vectoring while the F-35 does not? Is larger thus uses more material? Has a radar that uses more TR modules?

Only a narrow minded individual would equate cost to cheap material without taking the above factors into account.

Feel free to read the primary sources in the footnotes of the following citation.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[210] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[211] The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.[211] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[212] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[213][214]"[/QUOTE]



And were does it say anything about materials in that quote? The only thing mentioned was the F-35’s shaping.

 

[Martian2]

So what does the price disparity between the F-35 and F22 have to do with materials? Or their effect on stealth? And The F-35 is 197-237 million depending on model, and the F-22 is 150 million, those are official number, so who is the retard

It’s common knowledge that you make crap up. Try something official like this:

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf

Any idiot can see that you make up random numbers just like you make up random claims about the pak-fa and F-35. The F-35 uses very expensive materials, and has it ever occurred to you that the F-22 has 2 engines instead of one? Has thrust vectoring while the F-35 does not? Is larger thus uses more material? Has a radar that uses more TR modules?

Only a narrow minded individual would equate cost to cheap material without taking the above factors into account.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[210] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[211] The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.[211] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[212] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[213][214]"

Tired of your stupidity (see the Global Security RCS citations for F-22 and F-35)

Are you blind? Did you not see the Popular Science citation?

Are you claiming the F-35 has equal or superior materials than the F-22? If so, why does the F-35 (0.005 m2) have a higher RCS than the F-22 (0.0001 m2)? (See Radar Cross Section (RCS))

You're an idiot and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you're too dumb to understand, that's your problem.

How hard is it to understand that a high-performance Ferrari/F-22 has a superior design and is made of superior materials than a Russian Lada/F-35? You don't need a Ph.D. to figure that out.

----------

This is very simple.

It is a fact that the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in performance and stealth. Everybody knows this. The reasons are due to the F-22's superior design and materials. That's where the superior performance originates.

You argue the F-35 has equal or superior materials to the F-22. Why would Lockheed Martin design an inferior plane with equal or superior materials? That's completely idiotic.

The reason the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in performance and stealth is due to the attempt to manufacture a low-cost stealth fighter. The low-cost imperative led to an inferior design, because of the limitations of the inferior materials. Duh!

 

[ptldM3]

Tired of your stupidity (see the Global Security RCS citations for F-22 and F-35)

Are you blind? Did you not see the Popular Science citation?

Are you claiming the F-35 has equal or superior materials than the F-22? If so, why does the F-35 (0.005 m2) have a higher RCS than the F-22 (0.0001 m2)? (See

Yes I am, the F-35 has equal or superior material to the F-22. The F-22 has a superior RCS because of it’s design and not its material. Materials as in composite skin is made for weight and strength. RCS is firstly and mostly dependant on shaping, than ‘RAM’ coating than material.

Radar Cross Section (RCS))

You're an idiot and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you're too dumb to understand, that's your problem.

Watch your mouth, kid. If anyone is an idiot it is you. Just because you are frustrated that you can not answer my questions does not mean you need to act like a douche. Moving on, Where is the proof that the F-35 uses cheap materials? You have none. RCS differences between the F-22 and F-35 does not mean that the F-35 uses cheap material.


Here is proof you are a liar and a fraud:



Lockheed Martin reveals F-35 to feature nanocomposite structures

Lockheed Martin has revealed the F-35 Lightning II will be the first mass-produced aircraft to integrate structural nanocomposites in non-load bearing airframe components.


The shift to CNRP as an airframe material has been anticipated ever since carbon nanotubes were discovered in 1991. It is widely considered one of the strongest materials ever invented - several times stronger than carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP), yet lighter by about 25-30%.


Lockheed, however, has invented a process that dramatically reduces the cost to build carbon nanotube composites for aircraft structures, Earles said. The new wingtip fairing is being made for one-tenth of the cost of the equivalent CFRP component, he said.

More advanced? Check. Stronger? Check. Lighter? Check. Cheaper to manufacture? Check.


So now the truth comes out, the F-22 has nothing similar to the nanocomposites found in the F-35. Even more damning is that Lockheed has managed to reduce the cost of this nanocomposite by 1/10 compared to traditional material. So what were you saying? Still want to stick to the same story?

How hard is it to understand that a high-performance Ferrari/F-22 has a superior design and is made of

You argue the F-35 has equal or superior materials to the F-22. Why would Lockheed Martin design an inferior plane with equal or superior materials? That's completely idiotic.

The reason the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in performance and stealth is due to the attempt to manufacture a low-cost stealth fighter. The low-cost imperative led to an inferior design, because of the limitations of the inferior materials. Duh!

After reading my source, do you not feel a bit silly and ashamed especially after your over opinionated display of ignorance and utter lack of knowledge when it comes to the F-35.

 

[gambit]

I have been making the same claim with my analyses during the past year.

It was technically worthless then and it is technically worthless now.

1. JSF does not have supercruise capability.

When the J-20 get it, then we can talk further.

2. JSF is not an all-aspect stealth fighter. It has less-stealthy LOAN (low observable asymmetric nozzle) nozzles. The flat nozzles on the F-22 are the best design for radar and infrared stealth.

The J-20 is likely to install flat nozzles when the powerful WS-15 engine is ready, because it is the only feature where it is clearly inferior to the F-22.

When the J-20 get it, then we can talk further.

3. JSF has bumps along its entire bottom. There is also a large protrusion above the left airduct for the cannon on the F-35A, which makes it less stealthy.

Less 'stealthy'? How about it is 'stealthy' enough? This comment shows you do not have the full grasp of radar detection, low radar observability, and the tactical logic in incorporating the two into a design.

4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.

Where are these 'cheap materials' located on the aircraft and how do they compromise 'stealth'?

5. The combat radius is only half of the J-20.

Its combat radius is far less than the B-52 as well.

6. JSF lacks internal side weapon bays.

How does this make the F-35 inferior? Explain in technical and tactical details on how does mounting weapons on the sides is superior to anywhere else.

7. The JSF is significantly smaller in physical size and can only carry a much smaller radar with less T/R (transmit/receive) modules. Since it has only one engine, the available power to the radar is also significantly less.

If it has a smaller radar, then one engine is enough, ya think? But here is where your argument fails: Just because one array may have a larger T/R count, that does not automatically equate to overall superiority. For now, the US still leads in terms of T/R quality and software design. In AESA system, maximum power is rarely used, in fact, available power is used as reserve power for sub-array partitioning and choreography, not to blast the sky with all that energy.

The JSF radar is clearly inferior to the F-22 and a J-20 equipped with AESA radar.

Utter BS.

8. The J-20 will be able to look down and shoot missiles (with better kinematics or more kinetic energy) at the lower flying F-35. The service ceiling of the J-20 is 65,617 ft. It is only 60,000 ft. for the F-35.

Your non experience in aviation is showing. The 747's maximum altitude is over 40k ft. But how many 747 are at that altitude daily? Also, whenever a radar sales blurb says 'look down', it does not -- EVER -- mean straight down but that the beam is capable of looking at an descending angle. If the F-35 is low enough, it will get lost among ground clutter.

In conclusion, the JSF is no match for the J-20. The battle plan is for the F-22 to engage the J-20. However, there are only 187 F-22s. The military balance may shift if China produces 300 or more J-20s in the future (circa 2018).

In conclusion, your 'analysis' is no analysis but a technically ignorant fanboy's fantasy. Sending the J-20 with its floppity-flippity canards against the F-35 will be unwise.

Tired of your stupidity (see the Global Security RCS citations for F-22 and F-35)

Are you blind? Did you not see the Popular Science citation?

Are you claiming the F-35 has equal or superior materials than the F-22? If so, why does the F-35 (0.005 m2) have a higher RCS than the F-22 (0.0001 m2)? (See Radar Cross Section (RCS))

You're an idiot and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you're too dumb to understand, that's your problem.

How hard is it to understand that a high-performance Ferrari/F-22 has a superior design and is made of superior materials than a Russian Lada/F-35? You don't need a Ph.D. to figure that out.

----------

This is very simple.

It is a fact that the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in performance and stealth. Everybody knows this. The reasons are due to the F-22's superior design and materials. That's where the superior performance originates.

You argue the F-35 has equal or superior materials to the F-22. Why would Lockheed Martin design an inferior plane with equal or superior materials? That's completely idiotic.

The reason the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in performance and stealth is due to the attempt to manufacture a low-cost stealth fighter. The low-cost imperative led to an inferior design, because of the limitations of the inferior materials. Duh!

What is idiotic and comical is how you consistently failed to see how you contradict yourself. On the one hand, you correctly asserted that 'stealth' is achieved mainly by shaping and less by materials, but when convenient, it is the opposite.

The F-35's alleged RCS is higher than the F-22's alleged RCS is because of different mission requirements, not because of inferior materials.