cloneman
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 615
- Reaction score
- 0
Who tells you we are interested in T-50,care to provide the source?If that is the case, then why are you buying T-50s?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who tells you we are interested in T-50,care to provide the source?If that is the case, then why are you buying T-50s?
If that is the case, then why are you buying T-50s?
Who tells you we are interested in T-50,care to provide the source?
Opps,I don't think the Russians can make the decision for us.I don't think the PLA will have any interest to the three aircrafts above.russian............
"china will buy 50 su-33","china will buy 60 su-35","china will buy 100 T-50",etc.
You are so blinded by your own ego that you cannot see how you contradicted yourself as highlighted. You demand that others not use 'looks' but you make declarations about the J-20 based purely upon looks and your interpretations of what you see.When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard. The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. The nose is round. That is not stealthy. It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.
The air ducts are not canted. That's also not stealthy. The upper-fuselage does not appear to follow the continuous-curvature principle. It tapers to a point toward the rear.
The J-20 Mighty Dragon is a marvelous piece of stealth design and engineering. If you haven't seen it yet, watch my video. It has 79,534 views.
Remember your own words that in 'stealth' we cannot go by 'looks' alone.From my January 30, 2011 post:
J-20 matches F-22 in front-profile and may exceed F-22 in side-profile stealth
Left-half of picture is China's J-20. Right half is U.S. F-22.
Better? Bunk. As long as that 'gap' is not a significant contributor to overall RCS, it is not 'inferior' in anyway.(Note the J-20 air-inlet has been better integrated into the fuselage than the F-22's gap between the air-inlet and fuselage.)
You have 'proven' nothing. You guessed and even if eventually credible radar data is available and confirm your guesses, that still does not make you anymore credible today.I have two observations. Firstly, as shown in the spliced-photo above, I believe that I have been proven correct that the J-20 matches the F-22's frontal profile in stealth design.
Please see this => http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-6.html#post2006035Above: Picture of sleek J-20 with small tailfins.
Below: Picture of sleek F-22 with large tailfins.
Secondly, the F-22 may have tailfins that are significantly larger than the J-20. Given the increased surface area to reflect radar, this raises the possibility that the F-22 may have a higher side-profile stealth signature than the J-20 and is more vulnerable to bi-static or multistatic radar systems.
You mean gold paint. It is proven that DSI 'bumps' are not for 'stealth' but for inlet air control. As far as 'stealth' goes, all contributors must be designed, measured, and rated according to their relationships to each other. That mean as long as the diverter plates are not significant contributors, they are not considered detrimental to overall RCS. You obviously have a difficult time understanding the concept of 'balanced stealth'.China's J-20 is the new gold standard in front-profile stealth. The J-20 has both a serpentine air-duct and DSI bump to hide the engine compressor blades. Due to its older design, the F-22 lacks DSI bumps.
You mean gold paint. It is proven that DSI 'bumps' are not for 'stealth' but for inlet air control. As far as 'stealth' goes, all contributors must be designed, measured, and rated according to their relationships to each other. That mean as long as the diverter plates are not significant contributors, they are not considered detrimental to overall RCS. You obviously have a difficult time understanding the concept of 'balanced stealth'.
You are so blinded by your own ego that you cannot see how you contradicted yourself as highlighted. You demand that others not use 'looks' but you make declarations about the J-20 based purely upon looks and your interpretations of what you see.
And how can you tell anything about shaping just by looking? Now you are feebly playing with words in trying weasel out of your own trap.There is a huge difference between "looks" and SHAPING. I am discussing SHAPING and you can't tell the difference.
How does this make the J-20 superior? And sorry, we are under no obligations to take your words for it.From my July 12, 2011 post:
J-20 can supercruise and is more stealthy than F-35
1. In a much earlier post, I quoted a J-20 Chinese test pilot who confirmed the J-20 can supercruise. F-35 cannot.
Your continuing focus on those 'bumps' tell me you still have not learn anything and quoting from Kopp will not help. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' are not significant contributors, they work.2. J-20 has a clean design like the F-22. I have already mentioned the two flaws in the J-20 design that makes it currently inferior to the F-22 (e.g. "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles). However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."
And I have pointed out the reasons why PO alone is inappropriate. Heck, I even used Chinese sources to prove it.3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."
And how can you tell anything about shaping just by looking? Now you are feebly playing with words in trying weasel out of your own trap.
How does this make the J-20 superior? And sorry, we are under no obligations to take your words for it.
Your continuing focus on those 'bumps' tell me you still have not learn anything and quoting from Kopp will not help. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' are not significant contributors, they work.
And I have pointed out the reasons why PO alone is inappropriate. Heck, I even used Chinese sources to prove it.
Which world do you live in? The J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the T-50 in almost every respect (except for engines currently). The Indians are the ones who can't build a tank or a fighter without foreign help. That is the reason they always attack me when I post an objective observation of the Russian T-50.
China's aviation heritage: J-10A Vigorous Dragon --> J-10B Vigorous Dragon with advanced Diverterless Supersonic Intake --> J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter
so what man ,it means u can say anything to anyone & get away ,tell me when u r logged on IDF i would reply ur queries nicely & stop this farce of comparision of T50 & j20 jet here, this is a thread of future weapons of china not a comparision of T50 & j20 ,do it in some other thread or create ur own thread comparing T50 & j-20.okGive me a break. I was a member of Indian Defence Forum before you got there. I was there in the beginning (member #72) in April of last year.
Check the Chinese sub-forum. See those stickies by "Martian." Hmmm...who could that be?