The clearest J-20 pictures.

[eachus]

Let me post one of my favor 5G fighter picture. it can target J20 as well as F22.

 

[ViXuyen]

And where do you pull those figures from? Your rear end? What makes you think that the J-20 would be able to detect the pak-fa at those distances? Even if I play along with your moronic theory, the J-20 would still have to achieve a lock, this would be difficult merely by the fact that the pak-fa is designed to deny enemy aircraft the chance to achieve one. Furthermore, you would have to contend with the pak-fa’s Electronics warfare (EW) suit. Good luck trying to achieve a lock on a radar that changes frequencies many times per second. Or trying to overcome a internal EW suit that can employ a number of jamming techniques. Data-linking with dedicated EW aircraft will make things that more difficult. If by a miracle the J-20 can somehow defy the odds, it will be within firing range. And again reliability comes into play, how reliable is the PL-12? Just because one or several would be launched, it does not mean that any would hit the target because aircraft come with radar warning receivers and counter measures. This is if the pilot is any good, if a J-20 pilot launches a missile at too far of a range or at an unfavorable vector in relation to the enemy aircraft than that missile will simply fall out of the sky.

I think the Su35S with its IRBIS radar that can detect targets at 400 km out can blow this junk-20 out of the sky with ease.

 

[j20blackdragon]

I think the Su35S with its IRBIS radar that can detect targets at 400 km out can blow this junk-20 out of the sky with ease.

I think China can blow the entire country of Vietnam out of the sky with ease.

 

[gambit]

there are a man and a lady walk together.
you are not the family doctor of them(no personal info like cm,lb,etc,,), can you tell who is taller, who is heavier and who has more power? and just by your eye balls?

It is funny that you would use the 'eye balls' analogy. It is quite appropriate and actually debunk your argument.

This is not about 'stealth'. Notice that is how I always use that word. This is about radar cross section (RCS) control, which is a much more technically correct phrase. Anyway, in RCS control there are three main items: prediction/modeling and measurement. In the old days, it was prediction, then modeling, then measurement. With today's supercomputers, we can model then predict how that model is going to turn out, or we can predict (or want) how our model to turn out, then we build said model. Quite often, we can work both modeling and prediction together in a push/pull relationship. But measurement will always be the final arbiter on whether our modeling/prediction or prediction/modeling is as good as our egos said we are.

In the above examples, we have a time span of decades. Both aircrafts are full size. They were not under aerodynamic testing. They are out in what we who have relevant experience, which am going to assume you do not have, call a 'radar range'. An outdoor range, to be exact. Why is the SR-71 have no vertical stabs? Who knows. May be they have not install it yet. May be they were doing some measurement about them. But the point here is that NO ONE in the world, not even China, have more experience than US at RCS measurement. We have seen fine examples of 'Chinese physics' here to say many outlandish things about 'stealth' but I have no experience in 'Chinese physics'.

What Kopp did made him a laughing stock in the radar community, a community that he was never a member in the first place. He may be a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering or something to the same, but he was never involved in this specific area of aviation. That is like a rocket scientist opining on brain surgery. And vice versa. Then both communities laughs at each other. Fortunately for Kopp and APA, the radar community, specifically those who are (and were) involved in highly classified 'stealth' related projects cannot do any more than laugh. Some of the sh1t that I know about the old F-111's TFR system are still felonious information, meaning I could go to jail for revealing their details in public. So because those who are in the know about 'stealth' but cannot debunk Kopp without risking their freedoms, Kopp and APA are free to opine quite baselessly to fit their non-technical motive, which is to deride the F-35 as much as possible by anyway possible, and if it include making claims about the J-20, why should they care?

So from the days of the SR-71, decades passed, to the current F-35, the US have always reserve measurement to be the final arbiter of 'stealth' designs. The flow works: We predict and model, then we perform live measurements to doublecheck ourselves. I guess China is using 'Chinese physics'? Kopp and APA certainly seemed to have done so and the Chinese boys here approved because it conforms to their made up minds about China's capability in 'stealth'. Not one shred of measurement data is required.

At least the US is willing to reveal some of the measurement techniques for our 'stealth' aircrafts...

Benefield Anechoic Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benefield Anechoic Facility (BAF) is an anechoic chamber located at the southwest side of the Edwards Air Force Base main base. It is currently the world's largest anechoic chamber.

Air Battles Won Behind Closed Doors : Defense: The Benefield Anechoic Facility, used for testing planes at Edwards Air Force Base, is receiving a $200-million upgrade. - Los Angeles Times

... the Air Force's latest fighter jet was recently tricked into thinking it was in the heat of high-tech combat.

The F-16 Falcon sat motionless on a huge turntable as computer technicians bombarded it with electronic signals mimicking enemy missiles and radar stations, simulating a flight over hostile territory.

...thousands of small blue spikes protruding from nearly every square foot of its walls, floor and ceiling.

...the pyramid-like spikes absorb stray radar signals that bounce off aircraft during tests of electronic warfare devices, which allow military jets to detect, evade and jam enemy radar and missiles.

Air Force officials recently allowed a Times reporter and photographer to tour the chamber, but only on a day when no aircraft were in it.

BAF is an awesome facility. We are not going to reveal what we know of radar behaviors on an F-22 or F-35, but at least we let the public know our yardsticks.

So with 'Chinese physics', decades of experience and hundreds of million$$$ went down the drain. Way to go, China and Kopp...!!!

 

[lordwedggie]

Your points being:

1. Everyone from China and one Kopp are all clueless what stealth is and,
2. You and the US radar community alone have that knowledge but since it's classified and also because we from China use our own invented physics, therefor you won't really tell us anything to back up your claims (because it's classified and we are too dumb too irrational to understand it anyway).

Is this what you are trying to say?

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

Anyone that that proclaims things such as the pak-fa has ‘ same round and tall fuselage as the SU-30’ is an imbecile and should be treated as such.

For one, the two fuselages share little to no similarities, and two, what ‘stealth’ principle does the fuselage violate? What you think is irrelevant and if I’m quite frank, retarded.

Did you still not realize your fault and backwards logic? If the pak-fa’s (single) IRST is ‘not stealthy’ than the J-20’s (4 large) under-wing pods should be disatererous, after all there are four of them, they are many times larger than an IRST, they a spherical/cylindrical and they go against your ‘continuous curvature’ principle, but of course the J-20 is excused from basic physics.

Further, the pak-fa as you point out has an ‘uneven fuselage’ yet why is this important? Perhaps because it can present a corner reflector, be it small. Yet what about the J-20’s tail fins? If the pak-fa’s uneven fuselage is a corner reflector than the J-20’s tail fins are equally corner reflectors, and if we are fair they are worse because not only do you get a corner reflector from the side but from underneath the aircraft.





Give it a rest with the might drag-queen chest thumping and call it the J-20.









No because your post and diagrams are imaginary and have little scientific backing. If seen children's books with more scientific explanations

hahahahahahAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHa


here we go agian, the russian expert.

lol, as soon as the Pak-fa is sh@T post comes up, you bet ptldM3 is the first dude to reply.

LMFAO !!

 

[gambit]

Your points being:

1. Everyone from China and one Kopp are all clueless what stealth is and,

No, I did not even implied so.

2. You and the US radar community alone have that knowledge but since it's classified and also because we from China use our own invented physics, therefor you won't really tell us anything to back up your claims (because it's classified and we are too dumb too irrational to understand it anyway).

Is this what you are trying to say?

Did not implied that either. I know you MUST try to twist my words, but that is not going to work. I guess the flow: modeling/prediction and measurement, is too difficult for you to grasp.

 

[amalakas]

Your points being:

1. Everyone from China and one Kopp are all clueless what stealth is and,
2. You and the US radar community alone have that knowledge but since it's classified and also because we from China use our own invented physics, therefor you won't really tell us anything to back up your claims (because it's classified and we are too dumb too irrational to understand it anyway).

Is this what you are trying to say?

No.. what he is trying to say is that Engineering is a wonderful science.

You don't simply look at your calculations and say "this plane is VLO!!!" you go out, you build the damn plane and then you go and test it! exhaustively !!! until you prove your calculations right or wrong.

Just looking at a plane that someone painted black, doesn't make it VLO. It certainly doesn't make it an F-xx killer of the likes.

The reason some put more faith in the T-50 than the J-20 is the lineage coming from that family. The outrageous thing about the J-20 is the inconceivable amount of hubris going on!

When the americans came out and said the F-22 is VLO we believed them. Do you know why? Because we use american weapons and planes.
When they came to us and said the F-16 blk xx can do this and that but not this and that, we found out they were telling the truth. Then we went over to their home and we brought that equipment with us. And we went to REDFLAGS and other similar exercises and we have SEEN how good the F-22 is. We have seen how good the F-35 is. We have seen how good the F-15!!! still is.

now as a Greek who has served, I have the unique benefit of having seen the russian systems too. And I have seen how good they are. And the russians trust me, up until recently were very different in approach. They were no used to having their systems marketed or advertised. There were no brochures, no fat talk, no nothing. Just a "take system, go out in field, turn system on and try system in realistic conditions!, if you have questions please tell us" !!!

The russians will never tell you "this system will kill all!" , they will say "with this system, whenever condition x and condition y apply and you are in this and this position, you have 90% kill rate!" This way you know how to use the system and you can go out and test it and find out.

have I ever tested american equipment .. yes! planes ...yes
have i ever tested russian equipment .. yes, planes ...yes

have i ever tested frence equipment, yes, planes yes
have i ever tested german equipment yes, planes , no

have i ever tested chinese equipment, NO, planes, NO..

why would I believe all you guys are saying, simply because a plane is painted black? True, I am very happy that the Chinese now make what appears to be high tech planes. But would I go to war in one? ahhh NO. .

Do you even understand what this is all about?

 

[Jango]

Uh Mr Gambit, why are the two models that you posted, hung upside down on those poles? Any specific reason?

Secondly it is a pleasure to read your posts. Truly informative.

 

[Jango]

What is that little thing on the rod extending from the nose?

pitot tube? Although it looks small to be a pitot tube.

 

[cnnetspy2000]

Aerospace Plane is the kingly way

 

[lordwedggie]

No.. what he is trying to say is that Engineering is a wonderful science.

Do you even understand what this is all about?

Yes, both you and Gambit: Both of you process a very weird yet limited way for your reasoning.

No, I did not even implied so.


Did not implied that either. I know you MUST try to twist my words, but that is not going to work. I guess the flow: modeling/prediction and measurement, is too difficult for you to grasp.

Read your own words and summarize it for us, what DID you mean/imply/trying to communicate, is it your English or mine? For I honestly thought that was what you were trying to say. (obviously English is neither you nor my first language)

It seems to me as if though you are mostly talking to yourself, I don't understand this, therefor it might be interesting yet to behold what goes on in a... curious mind.

Thanks for without you (and Martian2) I'd still be a lurker.

 

[Martian2]

Let me post one of my favor 5G fighter picture. it can target J20 as well as F22.

Do you see all those metal rivets on the fuselage and the metal-framed canopy? Those will all reflect radar. The J-20 and F-22 fighter pilots will die of laughter when they see a gigantic radar signature on their MFDs (multi-function displays).

 

[Martian2]

The PAK FA is a joke.

LEVCONS.

Framed canopy.

Fully exposed compressor face.

Gaps around the inlets.

Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface

discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.

Conventional nozzles.

Thank you for the excellent analysis. By the way, all of these problems still exist on the T-50/Pak-Fa THIRD prototype.

 

[antonius123]

Really? The J-20 has no cylindrical shaping? Than what is the J-20’s chin? Or those under wing actuators? Both the Chin and actuators follow the countours of a perfect circle and both are long so they can be called cylindrical, as can the J-20 nozzles and aft fuselage.

Those are not cylinder. You still not learn the Elementry Math that I have teach you in the other threat.

Copp does not lie, per se, he just twists the truth and comes to premature conclusions. Reading much of his work especially the F-35, SU-35 comparison I can say that he merely guesses on much of his claims, such as him claiming the R-77 to be superior than the AIM-7 based on the fact that it has a larger explosive chare and better maneuverability. He said nothing about the seekers, their history of reliability, or counter measures; instead he made a proclemation based on rudimentary evidence.

If your assumption is true, then why there is none other Expert appear and confront his suggestion that J-20 is stealthier than pakfa?

I also provide evidence, as do others, you just conveniently disregard it. Nothing is good enough for you. Only Martian and Kopp are right.

Where?? I havent seen it yet.
I just see you are being delusional.

Looks like the aviation expert could not answer your question.

Wrong! It is you and amalakas that could not explained the equation and the connection with Kopp's, mine and Martian claim.

I am still waiting while you are running away.

As if any of the jokers here will understand half of that. The only thing these juveniles know is: The J-20 mighty-dragon is sleek and sexy, it is obvious it has been designed with super computers, its black RAM is super advanced and it’s DSI technology is devastating. The Canards are also superior to anything the F-22 and pak-fa have.

For sure the DSI, and curvature shape is better than exposed fan blade, round shape+ airduct gap on pakfa.

So where are your citations? You made a number of fantastic claims in the past yet failed to support them with any citations.

You are idiot.
I have advised you to read the link of the other threat from where I quote my own citation; you will find the citation there.

So pathetic that you still have no clue that round shape and corner reflector is detrimental to RCS as you are still asking citation now

Really Martian credible? This is a guy who believes that ’cold’ canopies are treated with ’RAM’.

I said: "credible link" that martin post. Dont be too idiot.

If I was a J-20 fan boy the last thing I would ever talk about would be corner reflectors:

Your statement confirming that you did not pass elementary math/geometry.