The clearest J-20 pictures.

[GR!FF!N]

@ptldM3

thanx mate for your contribution..

@topic

i'm not saying that J-20 is not stealthier.but it is not as stealthier as F-35 people are claiming.their tail fins,canards,open engine nozzles,missing sawtooth etc will make it less stealthy..not sure about Pak-Fa,but F-35 will be multi times stealthier than this.

 

[antonius123]

I could care less what he thinks. He also thinks that the SU-35 will eat the F-35.

You should not be ignorant. No other credible expert say opposite to his regarding J-20 stealth better than Pakfa judging from the shaping.

Many people here especially martian and me have already brought comprehensive explanation about it but you keep stubbornly refusing, therefore credible expert's statement is necessary to be shown to you.

There are some reason why SU-35 is more maneuverable than F-35 that base his statement; so your refusing his statement just because another statement of his that you may not be able to accept - is not justifiable.

 

[Martian2]

World stealth fighter rankings

#1 F-22 Raptor - RCS is 0.0001 m2 (from GlobalSecurity citation)

#2 J-20 Mighty Dragon - RCS is intermediate between F-22 and F-35 (Frontal and side-aspect RCS are 0.0001 m2 like F-22. Rear-aspect RCS with round LOAN engine nozzles is 0.005 m2 like F-35. See Australia Air Power citation below.)

#3 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - RCS is 0.005 m2 (from GlobalSecurity citation)

#4 T-50/Pak-Fa - RCS is 0.5 m2 (from Russian Embassy in India official website citation)

References:

GlobalSecurity: Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Russian Embassy in India official website: India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter

----------

Australia Air Power: J-20 is a "genuine Very Low Observable design"

J-20 Mighty Dragon is a "genuine Very Low Observable design" except for round engine nozzles, which can be fixed.

The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

"This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.

Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi).

Engineers and Scientists who work in ‘stealth’ (AKA ‘Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: ‘Stealth’ is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).

The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. The J-20 has observed the ‘Shaping, Shaping, Shaping’ imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. The X-35 mostly observed the ‘Shaping, Shaping, Shaping’ rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, ‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to ‘Low Observability’.

While discussing ‘rear-ends’, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles. However, the difference is much like the proverbial ‘Ham Omelette’: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20."

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and 蓝胖 for the picture.]

 

[antonius123]

@ptldM3

thanx mate for your contribution..

@topic

i'm not saying that J-20 is not stealthier.but it is not as stealthier as F-35 people are claiming.their tail fins,canards,open engine nozzles,missing sawtooth etc will make it less stealthy..not sure about Pak-Fa,but F-35 will be multi times stealthier than this.

I have explain this in another J-20 threat.

Martian just explain at the above.

The major ones:
- Pakfa has more round shape which is detrimental RCS
- Exposed fan blade which is very much detrimental to RCS
- Gap between airducts that create corner reflector

 

[Martian2]

J-20 Mighty Dragon lacks 10 critical design flaws on T-50/Pak-Fa

To be clear, I want everyone to understand that the J-20 Mighty Dragon does not suffer any of the ten critical stealth design flaws that are present on the T-50/Pak-Fa. You can compare the two pictures point-by-point.

Feel free to pick your favorite non-stealth feature on the T-50/Pak-Fa. You can select the exposed engine fan blades or the glaring metallic engine pods (or many other choices). Those two are my favorites.

----------

J-20 Mighty Dragon does not have any of the 10 critical design flaws found on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

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

 

[GR!FF!N]

@martian2 and antonius123

where did you find rcs of J-20 which is in testing phase???another high level source i suppose..

and rcs of T-50 is .5m2??? even our Rafale is stealthier than that..EF and Rafale's rcs is .5-.1 m2

and rcs of F-35 is near .00015 m2

stop posting wrong data..

@Martian2

you posted same pics of T-50 3 times from a photo sharing site which is not a valid source..stop your copy paste and post something logical explanation.

 

[Martian2]

@martian2 and antonius123

where did you find rcs of J-20 which is in testing phase???another high level source i suppose..

and rcs of T-50 is .5m2??? even our Rafale is stealthier than that..EF and Rafale's rcs is .5-.1 m2

and rcs of F-35 is near .00015 m2

stop posting wrong data..

@Martian2

you posted same pics of T-50 3 times from a photo sharing site which is not a valid source..stop your copy paste and post something logical explanation.

My citations are from the reputable Global Security, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India official website.

I have provided my citation links. In contrast, you're spouting garbage with no citations. You are a troll and this is the last courtesy reply that you will receive from me.

 

[GR!FF!N]

My citations are from the reputable Global Security, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India official website.

I have provided my citation links. In contrast, you're spouting garbage with no citations. You are a troll and this is the last courtesy reply that you will receive from me.

really???post links which cite rcs of F-35,T-50 and J-20..then we'll talk..and i have no intension of trolling.but posting false information is wrong.

 

[Martian2]

really???post links which cite rcs of F-35,T-50 and J-20..then we'll talk..and i have no intension of trolling.but posting false information is wrong.

Are you blind? Didn't you see these links?

References:

GlobalSecurity: Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Russian Embassy in India official website: India, Russia close to pact on next generation fighter

 

[GR!FF!N]

Are you blind? Didn't you see these links?

none of them has j-20..it is still secret.so don't post imaginary values.

and values of t-50's rcs is wrong..considering mig-29k has rcs of 1m2,rafale's has less than .5m2 and eurofighter's .1m2

The only cited RCS performance data was a recent claim by Sukhoi that the PAK-AF will have 1/40 of the RCS of the Su-35S. Unfortunately this was not qualified by threat operating band, aspect, or whether the Su-35S was clean or laden with external stores. The RCS of the Su-35S, head-on in the X-band, has not been disclosed, but given the extensive RAM treatments applied could be as low as 0.5 - 2 m2 for a clean aircraft with no stores. If the latter were true, then the PAK-FA X-band head-on RCS would be of the order of -13 to -19 dBSM. Such performance would be consistent with the shaping design, but not with the application of mature RAM and RAS to same.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html


and rcs of F-35

According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II



hope that satisfy you.its from the same ausairpower and globalsecurity site.

 

[MightyDragon]

I also admit that J-20 have "flaws" that make it not "stealth" enough！ Even it is not as stealth as F-22， I think it should be in satisfactory level. Chinese fighter designers are not stupid， these "flaws" just to compromise for aerodynamic advantages, and there are many methods to reduce the radar reflection effect on just restricted number of places...

 

[ptldM3]

You should not be ignorant. No other credible expert say opposite to his regarding J-20 stealth better than Pakfa judging from the shaping.

Your expert’s opinion is about as valid as the opinion of Martian. There are also experts that claim that the J-20 is not at all ‘stealth’. So why do you and Martian only pick out the statements that glorify the J-20? You and Martian remind me of typical Chinese sensors sprinkled with propaganda, I especially like the ‘mighty dragon‘ part, sounds like something chairman Mao would say.

Many people here especially martian and me have already brought comprehensive explanation about it but you keep stubbornly refusing, therefore credible expert's statement is necessary to be shown to you.

You and Martian comprehensive , please, your ‘comprehensive’ explanations are hysterical. You’re the same guy that made futile and embarrassing claims on your part and Martian, well… he just keep copying and pasting the same junk and ignoring reality. The man is still ignoring the fact that the J-20’s tail fins are a corner reflector by trying to hastily burry my comments with a wall of copy and past nonsense. The instigator’s comments have backfired and as usually he cowards by avoiding the subjects.


And how can we not take Martian serious, after all, he cited the “Russian embassy” , oh wait the so called ‘embassy’ got its information from an Indian blogger. Moreover, no real RCS figures for the pak-fa have ever been given and they will not be given, but if Martian chooses to take Indian bloggers a authentic sources than so be it.

There are some reason why SU-35 is more maneuverable than F-35 that base his statement; so your refusing his statement just because another statement of his that you may not be able to accept - is not justifiable.

Wrong, maneuverability is one of many reasons as to why he believes the SU-35 is superior to the F-35, and he gives lengthy explanations as to why. Kopp believes the SU-35 is superior to the F-35 in basically every way, shape, and form but is it really so? Now think about this, the pak-fa is supposed to be many times more lethal than the SU-35, and if Kopp believes the SU-35 can dominate the F-35 than where does that leave to J-20?

Remember if you believe what Kopp said about the J-20 than you should believe what he said about the SU-35. Or are we going to nit pick only what we want?

My citations are from the reputable Global Security, Australia Air Power, and Russian Embassy in India official website.

I have provided my citation links. In contrast, you're spouting garbage with no citations. You are a troll and this is the last courtesy reply that you will receive from me.

Your 'embassy citation' is from an Indian blogger . I also fail to see how Global Security or Australia Air Power is reputable. Word for you. No official RCS figures have ever been released---ever, not even for retired aircraft such as the F-117, in other words all your sources pulled numbers out of thin air.

 

[Martian2]

How did non-stealthy Su-30 features become magically stealthy on a T-50/Pak-Fa?

At PtldM3, explain to me why you think the following 10 non-stealthy Su-30 features suddenly become stealthy when they are present on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

Are you going to challenge the widely-known radar-reflecting feature of exposed metal engine pods on both the Su-30 and T-50? I've said this many times. You have to choose. Either both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are both non-stealthy or they're both stealthy. Which one is it?

The Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa share ten critical design features. On the Su-30, everyone agrees those ten critical features (labeled below) are not stealthy. You have to explain why radar-reflecting Su-30 metal engine pods suddenly become magically non-radar-reflecting metal engine pods when they're installed on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

PtldM3, you complain a lot. However, I never hear a reasonable explanation from you to explain these conundrums. According to you, how come the laws of physics are different for the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa?

Everyone knows that metal reflects radar. According to you PtldM3, why are you claiming the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa don't reflect radar? If it does, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. If it doesn't, why are you allowed to rewrite the laws of physics?

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

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

 

[antonius123]

Your expert’s opinion is about as valid as the opinion of Martian. There are also experts that claim that the J-20 is not at all ‘stealth’. So why do you and Martian only pick out the statements that glorify the J-20? You and Martian remind me of typical Chinese sensors sprinkled with propaganda, I especially like the ‘mighty dragon‘ part, sounds like something chairman Mao would say.

Who is he? why dont you show us that credible expert that saying PAKFA should be more stealthy than J-20?

If you are saying that Carlo Kopp is a chinese with propaganda then you are an idiot.

You and Martian comprehensive , please, your ‘comprehensive’ explanations are hysterical. You’re the same guy that made futile and embarrassing claims on your part and Martian, well… he just keep copying and pasting the same junk and ignoring reality. The man is still ignoring the fact that the J-20’s tail fins are a corner reflector by trying to hastily burry my comments with a wall of copy and past nonsense. The instigator’s comments have backfired and as usually he cowards by avoiding the subjects.

Your inability to comprehend is your own problem, hence you cannot blame us.

In fact you are unable to counter anymore except keep focusing in minor things such as: IRST, small fin rcs, etc and ignoring major things like: exposed fan blade, round shape of the nacelle, and angle reflector that blatantly existant in PAKFA.

And how can we not take Martian serious, after all, he cited the “Russian embassy” , oh wait the so called ‘embassy’ got its information from an Indian blogger. Moreover, no real RCS figures for the pak-fa have ever been given and they will not be given, but if Martian chooses to take Indian bloggers a authentic sources than so be it.

In fact we dont need real RCS figure, from the shaping expert will suggest that existing PAKFA is inferior to J-20 in term of stealth. From the shape of PAKFA that appears it is obvious what shape which suggest to be major detrimental on rcs.

Wrong, maneuverability is one of many reasons as to why he believes the SU-35 is superior to the F-35, and he gives lengthy explanations as to why. Kopp believes the SU-35 is superior to the F-35 in basically every way, shape, and form but is it really so? Now think about this, the pak-fa is supposed to be many times more lethal than the SU-35, and if Kopp believes the SU-35 can dominate the F-35 than where does that leave to J-20?

Then give us the link that prove your claim that Carlo Kopp is ignoring the stealth feature of F-35, I am afraid you miss understand his statement :o

Remember if you believe what Kopp said about the J-20 than you should believe what he said about the SU-35. Or are we going to nit pick only what we want?

Why not? as i said - your refusal to one Carlo Kopp statement doesnt justify your refusal to the other of his statement.

You should bring other CREDIBLE expert that claim contrary to him regarding the stealth J-20 vs PAKFA, that could justify your refusal to Carlo Kopp's statement.

 

[GR!FF!N]

How did non-stealthy Su-30 features become magically stealthy on a T-50/Pak-Fa?

At PtldM3, explain to me why you think the following 10 non-stealthy Su-30 features suddenly become stealthy when they are present on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

Are you going to challenge the widely-known radar-reflecting feature of exposed metal engine pods on both the Su-30 and T-50? I've said this many times. You have to choose. Either both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are both non-stealthy or they're both stealthy. Which one is it?

The Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa share ten critical design features. On the Su-30, everyone agrees those ten critical features (labeled below) are not stealthy. You have to explain why radar-reflecting Su-30 metal engine pods suddenly become magically non-radar-reflecting engine pods when they're installed on the T-50/Pak-Fa.

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

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

martian2...you posted the same image 4th time..i can post many links which says China doesn't even have capability to build a 5th gen aircraft..does that suits this thread well???posting from picture sharing site is not a proof..share something logical(if you have any).

Who is he? why dont you show us that credible expert that saying PAKFA should be more stealthy than J-20?

If you are saying that Carlo Kopp is a chinese with propaganda then you are an idiot.



Your inability to comprehend is your own problem, hence you cannot blame us.

In fact you are unable to counter anymore except keep focusing in minor things such as: IRST, small fin rcs, etc and ignoring major things like: exposed fan blade, round shape of the nacelle, and angle reflector that blatantly existant in PAKFA.


In fact we dont need real RCS figure, from the shaping expert will suggest that existing PAKFA is inferior to J-20 in term of stealth. From the shape of PAKFA that appears it is obvious what shape which suggest to be major detrimental on rcs.





Then give us the link that prove your claim that Carlo Kopp is ignoring the stealth feature of F-35, I am afraid you miss understand his statement :o




Why not? as i said - your refusal to one Carlo Kopp statement doesnt justify your refusal to the other of his statement.

You should bring other CREDIBLE expert that claim contrary to him regarding the stealth J-20 vs PAKFA, that could justify your refusal to Carlo Kopp's statement.

give a rest to the carlo kopp..what he thought he says..he maybe drunk or idiot or both..his words is not ultimate truth..post figures and scientific explanation..and credible links to prove it..no more carlo kopp..please..and don't post pics from file sharing site..any idiot can upload a photo like that.