What's new

Shenyang J-15 aircraft carrier-based aircraft

I admit my mistake. Sincerely apologize. You convinced me by their arguments. Each test sample, including for ground testing of the destruction should be
1. Contain all the electronic equipment.
2. Must have a full load of weaponry.
3. Have a pilot. :lol::lol:

I repeat once more for particularly clever.
This is a prototype for flight testing.

Finish a blow to the groin J-20. Tell about the engine J-20.:cheesy:
 
.
1. It is a prototype but on the next prototype a year later little has changed besides changes to sensors. The basic airframe has not changed.
2. Yes whats your point.
3. Okayyyy.




Are you literally that pathetic in your excuses?

j10b-31-1.jpg


This is also a Chinese plane, but it does not have black RAM all over it. It was first spotted in 2008. Guess what its still has far better finish on it then the PAK FA. So? Whats your excuse now? All I see here is a bunch of idiots who can't use any observable evidence, and tries to use libel. America certainly doesn't need to steal secrets from China but they do spend an exorbitant amount of resources to discover China's capabilities. As for Russia they could learn a few things in production quality of prototypes.

You don't have RAM ready for application on the PAK FA, therefore its naked even on its second prototype. Poor excuse, but go ahead and tell me your excuse for the poor build quality.



Prototype two has come out and the structural features have not changed dramatically. Only a few more sensors added or removed to the frontal fuselage. So tell me when they will change the airframe?

39837e8ac30a.jpg


LOL you think because some Russian fanboys changed wikipedia that it changes reality? Yes I suppose you are very good at fantasy

You are a troll. Maybe on your Russian forums you are considered acceptable because you agree with the crap others say? Sorry but more than a single neuron is needed for any actual intellectual discussion. You have brought nothing but false accusations easily proven wrong.

net-troll2.jpg

Who told you that the second prototype that change anything? Evil laugh at you.


What about pictures all pictures of T-50 is rather "old".
I have these pictures except for the lowest. :lol:

However, do not see the point of their show. They have already discussed many times on different specialized forums. If I have new and interesting pictures I'll post. If there are you out with it too. At the moment, the dispute entertainment, rather than search for truth.
 
.
Who told you that the second prototype that change anything? Evil laugh at you.


What about pictures all pictures of T-50 is rather "old".
I have these pictures except for the lowest. :lol:

However, do not see the point of their show. They have already discussed many times on different specialized forums. If I have new and interesting pictures I'll post. If there are you out with it too. At the moment, the dispute entertainment, rather than search for truth.

In layman terms it means you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and try to use others excuses without fully understanding the amount of fallacies they have.

And the pictures are of the 2 prototypes. Do you have pictures of the third?

This is not so much a dispute so much as you getting curb stomped. Yet you keep coming back for more.
 
.
I admit my mistake. Sincerely apologize. You convinced me by their arguments. Each test sample, including for ground testing of the destruction should be
1. Contain all the electronic equipment.
2. Must have a full load of weaponry.
3. Have a pilot. :lol::lol:

I repeat once more for particularly clever.
This is a prototype for flight testing.

What can I say? We have money to burn and we don't expect planes to crash when they have perfectly fine engines.

Finish a blow to the groin J-20. Tell about the engine J-20.:cheesy:

LOL. Are they telling you on Russian sites that the J 20 has 117S?

J-20%2B6.1.11%2B-%2Bexaust%2Bcomparison2.jpg


Sorry but only the ground testing was done with the AL 31F prototype.

All three flying tests were done with WS 10 derivatives with the LOAN esque petals.

J-20-underside_CDF_16-Jan-2011.jpg


Any other BS I need to correct for you?
 
.
can anyone upload a picture of J-20 without is final black coat of paint, in all its 'naked' glory? We would like to see the aerodynamics testbed in its primer or just unpainted frame. The Chinese definitely had a test flight with a testbed, right? I mean no one in their right minds will go directly to a production prototype without throughly testing the aircraft. So, without much ado, please pics of J-20 without the thick coat of paint.

And as for the discussion about engines, far more knowledgeable people on many forums have effectively debunked the fiction of J-20 being powered by WS10 'derivative'. The engines are definitely AL-31 derivatives. Yup they are Russian. Rest assured, fanboi bots will believe what they want to, they know shyte!
 
.
can anyone upload a picture of J-20 without is final black coat of paint, in all its 'naked' glory? We would like to see the aerodynamics testbed in its primer or just unpainted frame. The Chinese definitely had a test flight with a testbed, right? I mean no one in their right minds will go directly to a production prototype without throughly testing the aircraft. So, without much ado, please pics of J-20 without the thick coat of paint.


Oh so you've also jumped on the idiot wagon that because the J 20 is actually a more complete prototype it is somehow inferior. Thats troll logic for you.

TrollLogic06.png


And as for the discussion about engines, far more knowledgeable people on many forums have effectively debunked the fiction of J-20 being powered by WS10 'derivative'. The engines are definitely AL-31 derivatives. Yup they are Russian. Rest assured, fanboi bots will believe what they want to, they know shyte!

Yes I'm sure Bharat Rakshak is a far more knowledgeable forum for Indians like yourself. Try to bring some evidence, like I don't know photographs? Rest assured troll bots like you will continue to know shyte.:rofl:
 
.
Oh so you've also jumped on the idiot wagon that because the J 20 is actually a more complete prototype it is somehow inferior. Thats troll logic for you.
No where did I use or imply 'inferior' product. I just wanted to see a picture of unpainted J-20. How is that trolling? Do you or anyone of the bots has it? Then please post. A high res image would be highly appreciated.
Yes I'm sure Bharat Rakshak is a far more knowledgeable forum for Indians like yourself. Try to bring some evidence, like I don't know photographs? Rest assured troll bots like you will continue to know shyte.:rofl:
Dude, cut the crap. BR does have many professionals there who KNOW what they are saying. And its NOT the only forum out there. So there you have it.

Again, if you know so much that you and your ilk can call out inconsistencies or lack of sound design just by looking at a few pictures of T50, yu guys da man!! Now please post pics of unpainted J-20, we would like to see it in its b'day suit!

We will then talk. Meanwhile any posts from you and your ilk will be deemed trolling until you or your compatriot bots can come up with a pic of unpainted J-20. Be a man! Show us the pics.
 
.
We can see the poor finishing on the PAK FA. You can't with the J 20. We have seen many closeups already and what you imply does not exist in reality. If you do find the gaps we can clearly see on the PAK FA on the J 20 feel free to post a picture and point it out.


And what constitutes a poor finish? No RAM, no primer? So when the F-22 and F-35 made their test slights with no RAM or primer was that also a poor finish? I think not; and there is no close ups of the J-20 only distant shots from a zoom lens. And why is that so? Clearly some photographs were taken from the airfield but none show any true close-up's. On the other hand we have photograph of the pak-fa from just feet away. And do realize the J-20 has black paint/RAM, clearly much of the details are obscured.

And what gaps do you speak of? the only 'gaps' the pak-fa has is the weapons bays, landing gear bays, retractable fuel probe....if you consider that gaps that the J-20 also has gaps. And if you are referring to the intake/fuselage space than you should refrain for the following reasons:

1. The F-22 has the same feature.
2. You are way out of your league and understanding on the subject.
3. Geometrically there is zero indication that rcs would increase since the 'gap' recedes in a slop manner, where it exits to the lower fuselage.




Get me a picture and circle the lack of intersecting points in the J 20 and the intersecting points in all other stealth fighters.



Those intersecting points or sawtooth-like patterns are seen on all 'stealth' aircraft. The most prominent being the B-2 and the least prominent being the J-20 with the F-35 not far behind but still better.

Here is an illustration of those points:



The pak-fa:



As you can see there are many edges or sawtooth-like areas all over the wings, the biggest and most difficult to spot is where the horizontal stabilizer meets the main wing. If you are having trouble seeing it ignore the horizontal stabilizer and focus on the main wing. As you can see the wings are very irregular compared to average aircraft. The B-2, F-22, pak-fa, YF-23...ect do not have all of those unusual sawtooth like patterns because it looks cool, they are there for a purpose.


As for the intake if it is adjustable it will not be any worse than say the F 22 as it also has adjustable intakes.



Where do the F-22's intakes adjust? If we assume this to be true the J-20's intakes are DSI, the F-22's are not. And based of recent talk and animation the DSI will move, there will be much more difficulty for J-20 designers to achieve the same rcs for a adjustable DSI as apposed to a fixed one because of gaps, moving parts ect.


And if its not perfectly flush then the RCS increases. There is no evidence of this but once again you like to argue with lack of evidence don't you. Lets argue with observable arguments shall we.



Your are calling me a liar? I always try to provide sources.

Here is your evidence:

http://www.afa.org/Mitchell/Reports/MS_RadarGame_0910.pdf

As one Lockheed F‑117 engineer put it, “We couldn’t allow even the tiniest imperfection in the fit of the landing gear door, for example, that could triple the airplane’s RCS if it wasn’t precisely flush with the body.”



A landing gear door, a weapons bay, or an adjustable DSI are all in the same category--they are all moving/retractable parts. Weapons bays and landing gear doors are fairly simple, an adjustable DSI is not, so as the engineer puts it the tiniest imperfection or a panel that was not flush can cause an aircraft's RCS to triple.


So you admit that the J 20 is further along then the T 50 as it already has RAM applied. And don't start with the fanboy calling. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're quite a fanboy yourself.



You have a strange logic, since when does having RAM constitute as being further along? There are two flying prototypes of the pak-fa as well as some static models and a number of other prototypes on under construction. The flying prototypes are only for aerodynamics, later prototypes will integrate weapons and avionics, they will also be 'LO' platforms.

All the different pak-fa prototypes accelerate the testing process. If you want to believe the J-20 is 'further along' that is totally fine with me. You can think whatever you wish, but you must understand the pak-fa has made dozens of test flight and it flew a year before the J-20, and shortly there will be a third flying prototype.


And yes we have seen many high resolution close ups of the J 20.




No we have not, all are from far away using a zoom lens. There are two or three decent photograph but none are as close as pak-fa pictures, nor do they have the same resolution. And there is probably good reason for it.


So find the picture with the weld mark or this is unsubstantiated BS. But that’s not a surprise is it?




Here it is, there appears to be a weld mark or some sort of obvious imperfection behind the test probe which is located on the tip of the nose.



http://i.imgur.com/76n4M.jpg

You may need to click on the actual picture to enlarge it.


Some other things that stand out:

The airbrake is not plush.

Rivets/bolts are seen on the vertical stabilizer.

And antennas are visible.

How ironic, same things that the J-20 fanboys criticized and crucified the pak-fa for are now also seen on the J-20. Minus the weld marks and large air-brake gap. Talk about two faced and bias. I bet some people feel like slashing their wrists....:lol:

I've seen this photograph long ago but i never said anything about it because i'm not like the J-20 fanboys that rudely shout out the top of their longs when they see something that they think is poor 'quality' in the pak-fa. Manners, sensibility, and fairness, these things lack in the J-20 fanboys.



1. It is a prototype but on the next prototype a year later little has changed besides changes to sensors. The basic airframe has not changed.


Thank you, but you are not as clever as you think. It was well know that the second prototypes would be identical to the first, even I mentioned this before.



You don't have RAM ready for application on the PAK FA, therefore its naked even on its second prototype. Poor excuse, but go ahead and tell me your excuse for the poor build quality.


Know what you are talking about, the second prototype is an aerodynamics model. It will likely not receive any RAM. And please do realize RAM has been around for decades, the SU-35 and TU-160 have certain parts that are covered in it. Sukhoi can shoot the pak-fa with a coat of RAM if it wishes but it would not make sense since the aircraft is fitted with test probes that would make any RAM counter productive.
 
.
And as for the discussion about engines, far more knowledgeable people on many forums have effectively debunked the fiction of J-20 being powered by WS10 'derivative'. The engines are definitely AL-31 derivatives. Yup they are Russian. Rest assured, fanboi bots will believe what they want to, they know shyte!

and also on many other forums they have effectively proved f-20 used WS10 derivatives not AL-31``can you prove them wrong? what is their basic 'fact' that j-20 uses AL-31?
 
.
As you can see the wings are very irregular compared to average aircraft. The B-2, F-22, pak-fa, YF-23...ect do not have all of those unusual sawtooth like patterns because it looks cool, they are there for a purpose.

OMG the best idiotic line ever :rofl::rofl::rofl:

for god sake, scientists are designing a 5th gen fighter, not designing next Hollywood Transformer movie kits``! please cut of these noncensical craps so to make your posts are a bit more creditable`thx
 
.
ignore the trolls. arguing with them is useless. it is pure jealousy of chinas achievements that they do this.
 
.
1. So ptldM3 thinks that J-20 flew for the first time this January in front of the whole crowd? What if the test conducted in front of everyone wasn't fully successful?
2. The reason it was painted is because it flew all naked already well before its public fight this January.

Based on 2 observations above, ptldM3 who doesn't know squat about the way the PLA conducts things is badmouthing to make his bankrupt country look better. Nice try.:yahoo:
 
. .
i disagree.
the russians do have a large portion of the arms market.
the largest arms suppliers have purchased Russian, even China. Su-27, S-300, and so on for license production.
i think, they will have the arms market, certain areas for a while especially for industries the firms that have survived because they have an edge.
Twin engine fighter jets<---su-27/30
Tanks<----t-90 is 2 to 3 and has same dimension of t-72
missile systems<---s-300 which has made large sales and has become competitive in terms of price

know while the Su-27 airframe is old, it has massive potential to grow. with the new engines, it can super-cruise and bring it near or on par with the euro fighters.
the t-90, is of course a dead struggle, but a tanks a tank. and this one is competitive. its only competitor is the AK and T-84's from Ukraine. However, the Soviet, research has been applied and it keeps on seeing upgrades. Production is also cheap as well, not to mention maintenance.

As far a civilian market is concerned, the Russians, have just recently started competing in it. I know a few firms, that have made a reputation for them selves in services to Europe. The Soviet skills training paid off. Especially in heavy manufacturing of steal etc..

i agree.

us and European weapons are very high quality but very high price.
Chinese weapons are very cheap and reasonably good quality.

Russian weapons are much costly than Chinese weapons but cheaper than us and European weapons.

quality of Russian weapons is inferior to us or European weapons but superior to Chinese weapons. this situation will continue till china catches up.

plus buying Russian weapons mean no cisoma or hidden jammers.
 
.
You have absolutely no understanding of economy do you?

Military R&D requires significant resources, both human and financial. Arms sale to foreign buyers cannot recuperate all resources you've devoted back, since those demands are only a niche market compared to civilian goods. In another words, military hardware sales are tiny when you put things into perspective. Take the largest defence deal in Indian history, MMRCA for example. It is nothing compared to the volume of trade of say computer or software market. Citing a export of tanks and planes do not save Russia from the fundamental flaws in its economic structure. It's like saying you're fine because you have a nice sofa when your entire house is worn down.

You also make the same error when you are talking about Russian companies. Just because several of them might be successful inside/outside its borders, it does not elevate Russia out of the difficult situation it is in. Russian industrial capacity crumbled and has yet to find its footing. It seems that you are incapable of looking at the big picture. On the global scale, Russian econoy gets squeezed a little bit more each year.

The Soviet Union glorious days are gone and Russia is not even a shell of its former self. Accept it.

you are right. but military hardware sales keep Russian arms industry alive.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom