The clearest J-20 pictures.

[antonius123]

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).

Because you haven't given any enough argument to counter his explanation as he points in that picture

My suggestion: why dont you try to comprehend his point - and please give strong argument to counter if you dont agree.

Please be aware that he is trying to explain you through that picture that he has posted 4 times... with what else to explain you comprehensively unless with picture??

 

[Martian2]

At PtldM3, I'm trying to get you to answer a simple question.

Do the exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa reflect radar like the exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30?

----------

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]

give rst carlo kopp..what he thought he says..he maybe drunk or idiot or both..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.

If you refuse explanation from everybody just because it doesnt favour your belief, then what else we can do??

We have given you the explanation above, but instead of trying to understand you both keep refusing without giving any reasonable argument - just because it is not according to your belief. The last thing we could do to convince you is by quoting Credible Expert statement.

You can't say Carlo Kopp is an idiot just because he doesnt say something that please you; Carlo Kopp is a credible expert... and is much much more reliable/credible than you.

 

[Martian2]

Metal reflects radar.

That scientific fact proves 3 of the 10 critical design flaws on the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa.

I'm hoping to hear an answer back from PtldM3 before I die of old age.

I want to prove 3 points to all of you.

1. Metal reflects radar. All of you know this. Exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30 reflect radar and hence, it is not stealthy. You can see the same exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa. Hence, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.

2. Metal-framed canopy on both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa reflects radar. Hence, Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are clearly not stealthy.

3. Both Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa have straight inlets. If necessary, I can post the pictures to prove the T-50/Pak-Fa does not have a S-duct. All of you know that single-crystal metal engine fan blades lie inside the airduct. Therefore, the Su-30 and T-50 are not stealthy at all.

I've proven 3 out of the 10 critical design flaws on the list. I can prove the other seven if you insist.

 

[UKBengali]

^^^ Martian2.

I remember once that ptlmd2 said that the current T-50 is just an aerodynamic test aircraft and that the production aircract will be much more stealthy.

Let us see how much the shape of future T-50s prototypes change.

 

[GR!FF!N]

If you refuse explanation from everybody just because it doesnt favour your belief, then what else we can do??

We have given you the explanation above, but instead of trying to understand you both keep refusing without giving any reasonable argument - just because it is not according to your belief. The last thing we could do to convince you is by quoting Credible Expert statement.

its you guys who are posting same pics from some picture sharing site..give carlo kopp rest..i'm posting an article from aviationweek..

The canards are not good to maintain a very low observability profile as they increase the RCS. The current prototype is most probably carrying avionics system developed for the current line of 4th Gen aircrafts which are not the most advance in the world. China still has long way to go in composite materials thus the aircraft will have much higher maximum take-off weight. This is followed by China’s inability to build a reliable turbo-jet engines as it is yet to perfect a 90kN engine for the JF-17. Chinese designers have taken note of these deficiencies and have made the airframe suitably. The aircraft will carry a large payload of less sophisticated weapons rather than small number of highly sophisticated weapons, the aircraft has some 6 control surface (which includes the canard) and more fuel to burn to meet kinematic requirements and be somewhat comparably to the superior and better engineered American and Russian 5th Gen fighters. Also the aircraft is as good as its pilots and according to American, Japanese and Taiwanese assessments the Chinese pilots are not as skilled as American, Indian and Japanese pilots who have International exposure in air combat. Also the PLAAF is unproven force where as most of its adversaries are combat experienced.

Threat analysis of Chengdu J-20 the chinese stealth fighter | Defence Aviation


nowhere you'll see states that canard is better for stealth..same goes for fin..

[/QUOTE]

 

[antonius123]

its you guys who are posting same pics from some picture sharing site..give carlo kopp rest..

That is in order to make you understand.

i'm posting an article from aviationweek..

The canards are not good to maintain a very low observability profile as they increase the RCS. The current prototype is most probably carrying avionics system developed for the current line of 4th Gen aircrafts which are not the most advance in the world. China still has long way to go in composite materials thus the aircraft will have much higher maximum take-off weight. This is followed by China’s inability to build a reliable turbo-jet engines as it is yet to perfect a 90kN engine for the JF-17. Chinese designers have taken note of these deficiencies and have made the airframe suitably. The aircraft will carry a large payload of less sophisticated weapons rather than small number of highly sophisticated weapons, the aircraft has some 6 control surface (which includes the canard) and more fuel to burn to meet kinematic requirements and be somewhat comparably to the superior and better engineered American and Russian 5th Gen fighters. Also the aircraft is as good as its pilots and according to American, Japanese and Taiwanese assessments the Chinese pilots are not as skilled as American, Indian and Japanese pilots who have International exposure in air combat. Also the PLAAF is unproven force where as most of its adversaries are combat experienced.

Threat analysis of Chengdu J-20 the chinese stealth fighter | Defence Aviation


nowhere you'll see states that canard is better for stealth..same goes for fin..

First: the writer "Pratik Sawerdekar" is not known for his credibility.

Second: nobody said that Canard is good to maintain RCS.

My and Martian's argument is: Canard is detrimental, but not as big as Exposed Fan Blade, Big Round Nacelle, and Corner Reflector of the uneven/gap between air duct,.. more over as those are all combined together. He never said that J-20 is less stealthy than PAKFA

 

[GR!FF!N]

That is in order to make you understand.



First: the writer "Pratik Sawerdekar" is not known for his credibility.

Second: nobody said that Canard is good to maintain RCS.

My and Martian's argument is: Canard is detrimental, but not as big as Exposed Fan Blade, Big Round Nacelle, and Corner Reflector of the uneven/gap between air duct,.. more over as those are all combined together. He never said that J-20 is less stealthy than PAKFA

neither are we..we said J-20 has some flaws that will make it less visible.Pak Fa is an air superiority aircraft.plus soviet stealth doctrine isn't same as american doctrine.we never even mentioned about pak fa in the first place.its martian2 who posted same pics again again.and i merely rectified his false data..and canard and fins will be more stealth killer than open engine(which russians can modify it)..you guys are posting off topic subject and making it a troll thread...adios..

 

[Martian2]

^^^ Martian2.

I remember once that ptlmd2 said that the current T-50 is just an aerodynamic test aircraft and that the production aircract will be much more stealthy.

Let us see how much the shape of future T-50s prototypes change.

Third T-50/Pak-Fa prototype shows no external change from first prototype 2 1/2 years ago

After two and a half years, we are already on the third T-50/Pak-Fa prototype. The labeled diagram (with 10 critical design flaws) is overlaid on Sukhoi's picture of the third prototype (see link below). It doesn't look like there will be any significant exterior changes. PtldM3 can't keep using that excuse forever.

I just want him to admit the T-50/Pak-Fa third prototype is not stealthy.

Repeat after me: "The exposed metal engines on the Su-30 render them visible to enemy radar that bounces off of them from above, below, from the side, and from behind.

Similarly, I acknowledge the exposed metal engines on the T-50/Pak-Fa render them visible to enemy radar that bounces off of them from above, below, from the side, and from behind."

Come on, say it.

----------

Reference: The third PAK FA prototype first flight

 

[gambit]

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."

That 'study' is a joke.

Someone very famous in the radar community who, unlike Kopp, has actual experience, said this...

Edge diffraction signals are far lower than specular in most situations, however, in RCS control they simply cannot be ignored as APA have done. Each generator must be factored in and only then can any, not all, edge diffraction generator be dismissed.

If I wanted to, I could have use edge diffraction as sole modeling criteria and make the J-20's RCS as low as the F-22's alleged figure or even lower. I suspect the reason why APA did not do so is because that would have been too blatantly dishonest. The Physical Optics method, flawed as it is, is far less suspect and more acceptable to gullible people like you. The reason why PO was used was because APA have no other more sophisticated tools. On a complex body, edge diffraction signals from a structure can produce specular reflection signals off another structure, which in turn may reflect off the first structure AGAIN, the one whose Keller signals were initially ignored. In other words, using the PO method alone on a complex body potentially misses out 2/3 of the true and total of any structural generator. Giving a false low RCS value of a structure and of the complex body itself.

APA may have produced some quite impressive analyses in the past, but as far as the radar community is concerned, this 'study' for the J-20 made them a laughing stock.

 

[antonius123]

neither are we..we said J-20 has some flaws that will make it less visible.Pak Fa is an air superiority aircraft.plus soviet stealth doctrine isn't same as american doctrine.we never even mentioned about pak fa in the first place.its martian2 who posted same pics again again.and i merely rectified his false data..and canard and fins will be more stealth killer than open engine(which russians can modify it)..you guys are posting off topic subject and making it a troll thread...adios..

Could you give any citation which back your claim that canard and fins will be more stealth killer than exposed Fan Blade, or Round Nacelle, or huge corner reflector?

You know both Eurofighter and Rafale is claimed to be considerably stealthy because their hidden fan blade as the major factor? eventhough they have CANARD. By your logic the Rafale or Eurofighter should be less stealthy than Su-27 due to canard existance on both Rafale/Eurofighter.

That fact is more than enough to ruin your baseless assumption.

 

[gambit]

- Pakfa has more round shape which is detrimental RCS

No, it is not. What you and your friend believe came from a false understanding of behaviors.

 

[antonius123]

No, it is not. What you and your friend believe came from a false understanding of behaviors.

Then tell me what is the shape of the nacelle / nozzle of the above PAKFA if it is not round.

 

[GR!FF!N]

Then tell me what is the shape of the nacelle / nozzle of the above PAKFA if it is not round.

another image form photo sharing site..even it is partly hand drawn..

 

[antonius123]

another image form photo sharing site..even it is partly hand drawn..

How about this??

What kind of shape is that nacelle and nozzle if not round?
How many times should people post this image but you never bother to discern and understand?