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

[amalakas]

You misunderstand peoples.

Nobody claim that they have classified information of those planes (J-20, Pakfa, F-22, F-35).
Nobody claim that they can measure which fighter will be more excellent.
Carlo Kop's never claim such things either.

As I said many times, He (Carlo) only SUGGEST which fighter of the two has better shaping in term of stealth; thats it!
He doesnt say any number of the RCS of both plane.

Therefore there is no need of supercomputer to calculate or any Modeling/Predicting and Measurement process for that kind of suggestion.

No, he says which (and not even that, because he only does it for the J-20) has better PO response in the simulation he conducted.

Let me ask you, There has been a huge debate all over the internet about the size of the J-20. How does Kopp know? And he needs the size -of everything on that plane- to make an accurate model.

If he does know, how does he?
and if he doesn't, how can we trust his model?

 

[antonius123]

No, he says which (and not even that, because he only does it for the J-20) has better PO response in the simulation he conducted.

Let me ask you, There has been a huge debate all over the internet about the size of the J-20. How does Kopp know? And he needs the size -of everything on that plane- to make an accurate model.

If he does know, how does he?
and if he doesn't, how can we trust his model?

OK.

First of all, could you give me the link that saying Kopp claim J-20 has better PO based on his simulation?
And what is the size of J-20 according to him?

 

[amalakas]

OK.

First of all, could you give me the link that saying Kopp claim J-20 has better PO based on his simulation?
And what is the size of J-20 according to him?

I don't remember him saying what the size of the J-20 is, but he used computer models, he must use a size for that. That is how it works.

the only link I have right now is this.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html

 

[antonius123]

I don't remember him saying what the size of the J-20 is, but he used computer models, he must use a size for that. That is how it works.

the only link I have right now is this.

A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype

You cant say like the above.

You need to check the source/evidence, otherwise it is only assumption of yours.

In that link Copp said it is preliminary.

 

[amalakas]

You cant say like the above.

You need to check the source/evidence, otherwise it is only assumption of yours.

In that link Copp said it is preliminary.

It is not an assumption. It is a fact. I work with modelling software. I am an engineer. You need dimensions to make a model. It doesn't work otherwise.

besides the report mentions this as well.

The Physical Optics (PO) method is used to predict the RCS of complex targets, in this instance the Chengdu J-20 prototype. The three dimensional model for any such target comprises a collection of triangular facets, with shared edges.

also further down the report states.

The model used was an extant public domain 3,343 facet representation constructed from publicly available high and medium resolution photographic imagery of the J-20 prototype, observed in December, 2010, and January, 2011.

....
The geometrical fidelity of the model was assessed by comparison with high resolution imagery released in January, 2011, specifically by comparing the shape of the model from the same aspect as the photograph.

there you go, he used photographs to make the model....
preliminary or not, this is the article the funboys in this forum are using. Not me.

 

[gambit]

You misunderstand peoples.

Nobody claim that they have classified information of those planes (J-20, Pakfa, F-22, F-35).
Nobody claim that they can measure which fighter will be more excellent.
Carlo Kop's never claim such things either.

As I said many times, He (Carlo) only SUGGEST which fighter of the two has better shaping in term of stealth; thats it!
He doesnt say any number of the RCS of both plane.

Therefore there is no need of supercomputer to calculate or any Modeling/Predicting and Measurement process for that kind of suggestion.

And it is clear that you do not understand the technical issues involved. But can we say that based upon your arguments that 'suggest', Kopp merely made a BASELESS opinion? Why do you place that baseless opinion higher than other more cautionary ones? Because you are a technically ignorant suck up.

 

[antonius123]

And it is clear that you do not understand the technical issues involved.

Why is that?
Dont throw another baseless claim.

But can we say that based upon your arguments that 'suggest', Kopp merely made a BASELESS opinion? Why do you place that baseless opinion higher than other more cautionary ones? Because you are a technically ignorant suck up.

You are too ignorant if you say somebody's opinion that F-22 is more stealthy than Phantom or Flanker is baseless. One can suggest by seeing the shape.

 

[antonius123]

It is not an assumption. It is a fact. I work with modelling software. I am an engineer. You need dimensions to make a model. It doesn't work otherwise.

besides the report mentions this as well.




also further down the report states.



there you go, he used photographs to make the model....

But this is only simulation; we are free to use some assesment, as long as we know the model doesnt represent the accuracy.

Thats why he use word "suggest", "indicate", or even "speculate", not "guarantee"

Simulation is only an "approach" to obtain suggestion/indication, because we dont know the real data and we havent had a chance yet to see the real combat. that's it.

It is wrong to judge
preliminary or not, this is the article the funboys in this forum are using. Not me.

As long as we understand that it is not accurate or a guaranteed, then that is still OK.

In fact many peoples in forum even like to debate something speculative where the data still much classified.

For example we dont know which fighter is better between EF2K vs SU-33 until they meet in real combat, but peoples is free and has made simulation about which one should be more excellent.

The same case with J-20 vs Pakfa, nobody knows exactly / could guarantee which one is stealthier until one has access/chance to do thorough analysis on both real planes. But since that situation is not present, we know a little, and all we can do is suggest. We can use an approach like simulation to obtain indication/suggestion, which is of course not a guarantee.

 

[amalakas]

But this is only simulation; we are free to use some assesment, as long as we know the model doesnt represent the accuracy.

Thats why he use word "suggest", "indicate", or even "speculate", not "guarantee"

Simulation is only an "approach" to obtain suggestion/indication, because we dont know the real data and we havent had a chance yet to see the real combat. that's it.



As long as we understand that it is not accurate or a guaranteed, then that is still OK.

In fact many peoples in forum even like to debate something speculative where the data still much classified.

For example we dont know which fighter is better between EF2K vs SU-33 until they meet in real combat, but peoples is free and has made simulation about which one should be more excellent.

The same case with J-20 vs Pakfa, nobody knows exactly / could guarantee which one is stealthier until one has access/chance to do thorough analysis on both real planes. But since that situation is not present, we know a little, and all we can do is suggest. We can use an approach like simulation to obtain indication/suggestion, which is of course not a guarantee.

I have no problem with what you just said here. But I think it contradicts some of the things you have written in the past.

 

[ephone]

Whether J-20 is better or worse than other aircrafts, I pretty believe it is all speculation here. People are just debating out of thin air out of imagination.

 

[shahadat hussain]

^ yeah leave the J20 out of discussion

 

[A1Kaid]

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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


Utter BS.


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, 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.


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.

Great in-depth analysis, do you think in an air war the F-35 II is decisively capable of defeating the J-20 or vice versa in air to air combat?

 

[A1Kaid]

A pehnomenal level of technological advancement has been achieved by the chinese over the last 2 decades burning the a$$es of their critics and haters. Good going china. The russians will ultimately have to acknowledge chinese superiority and so will the americans while some hater wanna be hyper power will burn in jealousy.

chinese over the last 2 decades burning the a$$es of their critics and haters.

The Chinese have done a lot of reverse engineering on Russian aviation technology, and Chinese intelligence gathering has given them a rapid boost in their understanding of advance aviation throughout the decades.

You see unlike US the country who was a pioneer in all aviation fields and especially air superiority fighters the US had no country it could reverse engineer from, no country to learn from or make model of, so to be the first in something never done is always a greater challenge than doing the same feat decades after it has been done by others, I'm not saying it doesn't necessarily take as much effort but there are short-cuts that can be taken.

Until now, China's chances of perfecting the J-20 technology seemed far in the distance and dependent on how much tech they could copy from Russian designs they already had, or lift from Lockheed databases.

Source: China Buys Su-35s - Business Insider

Security experts admit China stole secret fighter jet plans

From: The Australian
March 12, 2012 12:00AM

CHINESE spies hacked into computers belonging to BAE Systems, Britain's biggest defence company, to steal details about the design, performance and electronic systems of the West's latest fighter jet, senior security figures have disclosed.

Source: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


Hope you understand how China's technological progress in aviation was expedited. Also after fall of Soviet Union, many Russian scientist and professionals went to China for work and applied their expertise there. Certainly the Chinese aren't alone, US took German scientist out of Germany after WWII and they contributed to the American scientific development.

 

[BDforever]

to Russia and china , keep going guys.... you guys keeping the world balance

we have eye on both Pak-fa and J20

 

[A1Kaid]

to Russia and china , keep going guys.... you guys keeping the world balance

we have eye on both Pak-fa and J20

U.S. offers Bangladesh $1 billion in aid over next five years | Reuters