What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

I understand english is not your first language but tr to read again slowly.

1. You have given no proof for that

2. That is all I see in that post. It is a bad analogy he has used to describe China's technological capability

3. Please learn to read slowly and properly. The F-35 uses a developed form of the LOAN nozzle but it is NOT superior to the IR reduction and RCS reduction offered by the F-35's nozzle. Also, the 2D TVC on the F-22 was found sufficient to carry out all manoeuvres that are required by tactical air combat instead of airshow manoeuvres. The F-35 was not required to be as stealthy as the F-22. The issue is not whether the J-20's nozzle is as stealthy as the F-35.. it is NOT as stealthy in terms of IR and RCS as the F-22.

4. Because unlike the F-35, we have ZERO reports from news agencies on the J-20. So if we dont know what is going on, how do we know if everything is going ok with the program?

F-117 was shot down by Serbian anti-aircraft.
End of story.

US stealth is just another myth. Serbia embarrassed the US Airforce by shooting down their stealth plane.

F-22 has never been proven against proper militaries, its just hype. There was hype regarding F-117 too and it got shot down the first real opposition it had.

Same will happen to the F-22. F-35 is beyond a joke even US military admits it.

1). You are now running away from a proper argument.
2). You have no argument to present and hence have no intellect other than personal attacks(which means I will ban you from this thread forever).
3) Plenty of books/ journal and publications out there on the topic. So yes we do know a lot of the whole story as compared to the J-20. Your argument looks to fail just on your bias and not on actual knowledge

4). Yes it will be a game changer , there is no doubt to it. Just not how you see it.



I think the system is a simple compromise compared to the complex trapeze system of the Raptor. As such, there are lesser moving parts and easier fabrication. Not to mention potentially greater structural strength to the design. But hanging them outside may also mean that the Missiles may not be able to operate in LOAL mode like the AIM-9M and X potentially can.

So it is possible that the Chinese missile needs to have its seeker outside to be used in caged or uncaged mode. It cannot be given targeting data within the confined of the bay and then pop out towards a vector to search via its own seeker.

A simpler explanation may also lie with the design itself, perhaps the Chinese are not looking for a silent WVR kill and know that if they are within WVR their radar signature is already there and compromised. Hence its better to have weapons on rails ready to shoot.

Sorry but it is YOU that is running away from an argument by threatening to ban him forever because he put holes in your arguments.

He is just exposing your extreme bias.
 
Last edited:
Mr beast, i like (gambit) because his knowledge about aerodynamic and RCS measurement links in his post and by the way did gambit send drone to kill my tribesmen you fool:o:

Yes, his government he supported send the drone to kill your men. And if you are familiar with US mainstream. Their media and people are very hostile to any achievement of China. Be it good or bad, they will not say anything good about China and try to misled the mass.

Gambit is an American Vietnamese. That will even make him more unfit to comment anything about Chinese achievement with regards to tension between Vietnam and China. You seriously believe he will give a partial judgement on J-20? Expert does not mean they are impartial. That is the point.
 
F-117 was shot down by Serbian anti-aircraft.
End of story.

US stealth is just another myth. Serbia embarrassed the US Airforce by shooting down their stealth plane.

F-22 has never been proven against proper militaries, its just hype. There was hype regarding F-117 too and it got shot down the first real opposition it had.

Same will happen to the F-22. F-35 is beyond a joke even US military admits it.



Sorry but it is YOU that is running away from an argument by threatening to ban him forever because he put holes in your arguments.

He is just exposing your extreme bias.

And where is the technical proof in your argument for this?
Your countryman stuck to personal attacks instead of posting actual knowledge, would you like to follow him down the same path?
 
I think the system is a simple compromise compared to the complex trapeze system of the Raptor. As such, there are lesser moving parts and easier fabrication. Not to mention potentially greater structural strength to the design. But hanging them outside may also mean that the Missiles may not be able to operate in LOAL mode like the AIM-9M and X potentially can.

So it is possible that the Chinese missile needs to have its seeker outside to be used in caged or uncaged mode. It cannot be given targeting data within the confined of the bay and then pop out towards a vector to search via its own seeker.

A simpler explanation may also lie with the design itself, perhaps the Chinese are not looking for a silent WVR kill and know that if they are within WVR their radar signature is already there and compromised. Hence its better to have weapons on rails ready to shoot.
In order for the weapons bay to be radar visible, the radar would have to be looking at the general area in the first place. So if we are to go by the three rules of designing a low radar observable body, which I stated many times before, then how is a missile hanging outside and against a smooth wall any better than the bay itself ? It does not make logical sense.

But if people are willing to speculate in that direction, I am willing to speculate that for the J-20, the communication between the aircraft's radar and the missile is not as capable as the F-22's. The AMRAAM can receive continuous target updates from the parent aircraft before it is launched and after it is launched. For the J-20, hanging the missile to the outside could indicate the missile must acquire the target on its own so it must be of the older lock before launch type.

Gambit is an American Vietnamese. That will even make him more unfit to comment anything about Chinese achievement with regards to tension between Vietnam and China. You seriously believe he will give a partial judgement on J-20? Expert does not mean they are impartial. That is the point.
That make no sense, but then most of the stuff you guys say make little sense in the first place.

If my national origin disqualified me from commenting on Chinese military hardware, then what make you Chinese qualified on commenting on US military hardware ? Further, not only does your race disqualified all of you from commenting on US military hardware, not one of you ever served in the military, let alone know anything about military aviation, so why not take your own advice and STFU ?

An expert may be biased, but at least his arguments are based upon his experience. What do you guys have in terms of military aviation experience compares to my nearly 19 yrs worth, in and out of the military ?
 
Last edited:
In order for the weapons bay to be radar visible, the radar would have to be looking at the general area in the first place. So if we are to go by the three rules of designing a low radar observable body, which I stated many times before, then how is a missile hanging outside and against a smooth wall any better than the bay itself ? It does not make logical sense.

But if people are willing to speculate in that direction, I am willing to speculate that for the J-20, the communication between the aircraft's radar and the missile is not as capable as the F-22's. The AMRAAM can receive continuous target updates from the parent aircraft before it is launched and after it is launched. For the J-20, hanging the missile to the outside could indicate the missile must acquire the target on its own so it must be of the older lock before launch type.

Well, I think you cant compare the AMRAAM's radar guidance with that of an IR missile. The guidance for the SD-10 is similar to that of the AMRAAM( that I can assure with good source authority) . However, I am not too sure about PLA's IR missiles. They do still seem to lack LOAL modes that certain western weapon systems have. Hence the need to hang them out of the bay for the IR seeker to get a lock.
 
Well, I think you cant compare the AMRAAM's radar guidance with that of an IR missile. The guidance for the SD-10 is similar to that of the AMRAAM( that I can assure with good source authority) . However, I am not too sure about PLA's IR missiles. They do still seem to lack LOAL modes that certain western weapon systems have. Hence the need to hang them out of the bay for the IR seeker to get a lock.
The better IR missile can receive target updates from the parent aircraft's radar. The missile's computer essentially have a general direction on where to focus its sensor data processing. Infrared focal plane array (IR-FPA) systems are highly resistant to seduction/distraction flare tactics precisely of the ability to remember emission sources -- plural -- on the array. Now feed the missile target data based upon an educated guess on where the target should be on that field-of-view and the missile will pre-process that area on the array.

http://general-vision.com/pub3rdparty/3P_Labonte_Deck.pdf
Thus, a reject sector can be created in the field of view of the missile that reduces the interest of IR sources in this region about the aircraft. The seeker can also take into account the rate of separation between the flare and the target aircraft.
 
The better IR missile can receive target updates from the parent aircraft's radar. The missile's computer essentially have a general direction on where to focus its sensor data processing. Infrared focal plane array (IR-FPA) systems are highly resistant to seduction/distraction flare tactics precisely of the ability to remember emission sources -- plural -- on the array. Now feed the missile target data based upon an educated guess on where the target should be on that field-of-view and the missile will pre-process that area on the array.

http://general-vision.com/pub3rdparty/3P_Labonte_Deck.pdf

How would you postulate that be done if the missile is the weapons bay? Say a AIM-9M in the F-22's side bay. The IR sensor is essentially shrouded? I know that the F-22 is able to provide targeting data(in caged mode) to the AIM-9M before it launches so the missile knows where to look for the target right after it comes out of the bay.
 
1). You are now running away from a proper argument.
2). You have no argument to present and hence have no intellect other than personal attacks(which means I will ban you from this thread forever).
3) Plenty of books/ journal and publications out there on the topic. So yes we do know a lot of the whole story as compared to the J-20. Your argument looks to fail just on your bias and not on actual knowledge

4). Yes it will be a game changer , there is no doubt to it. Just not how you see it.



I think the system is a simple compromise compared to the complex trapeze system of the Raptor. As such, there are lesser moving parts and easier fabrication. Not to mention potentially greater structural strength to the design. But hanging them outside may also mean that the Missiles may not be able to operate in LOAL mode like the AIM-9M and X potentially can.

So it is possible that the Chinese missile needs to have its seeker outside to be used in caged or uncaged mode. It cannot be given targeting data within the confined of the bay and then pop out towards a vector to search via its own seeker.

A simpler explanation may also lie with the design itself, perhaps the Chinese are not looking for a silent WVR kill and know that if they are within WVR their radar signature is already there and compromised. Hence its better to have weapons on rails ready to shoot.

Very sorry about what happened.
I apologize for my improper manners.

I fully dare not to challenge you, Sir Oscar who always get my respect.
Actually, I mistook you as dear g*m**t since the water was boiling hot......

Hope you can forgive me and allow me back to this post since I respect the news and discussion here.

Best regards,

Thanks.

A lot of things wrong with your post.

Also, the PL-12 has not yet entered the testing phase beyond dummy carriage.

It's not true.

top-side-full-1-778x437.jpg

J-11B carrying with PL-12 and PL-8 buzzed P-8.
 
Last edited:
WVR combat is the last place a F-22 wants to be at the moment. The current F-22 fleet doesn't have infrared search and track (IRST) or a helmet-mounted cueing system (HMCS). Lock-on after Launch isn't available until the AIM-9X Block II.

In the meantime, the F-22 has to keep the side bay doors open like this while the AIM-9M attempts to lock.:disagree:

392671799_06b6b950d0_z.jpg
ucibv6s.jpg
 
Last edited:
That is a dumbass article.

The missile hanging on the outside for how long and its own body does not possibly compromise the aircraft's RCS ?
Actually they said, it will hang there just prior to lunch, so it is a matter of seconds I gess.
 
Very sorry about what happened.
I apologize for my improper manners.

I fully dare not to challenge you, Sir Oscar who always get my respect.
Actually, I mistook you as dear g*m**t since the water was boiling hot......

Hope you can forgive me and allow me back to this post since I respect the news and discussion here.

Best regards,

Thanks.



It's not true.

top-side-full-1-778x437.jpg

J-11B carrying with PL-12 and PL-8 buzzed P-8.

You( and a lot of Chinese and Pakistanis) need to learn to debate with a cool head and focus on technicality.


I am not alien to Chinese equipment or capabilities. But you also need to look at where you stand.

I mistakenly said PL-12/SD-10 when I meant the chinese high agility missile that was supposedly in development.
PL-ASR-AAM-Illustration-1S.jpg
 
WVR combat is the last place a F-22 wants to be at the moment. The current F-22 fleet doesn't have infrared search and track (IRST) or a helmet-mounted cueing system (HMCS). Lock-on after Launch isn't available until the AIM-9X Block II.

In the meantime, the F-22 has to keep the side bay doors open like this while the AIM-9M attempts to lock.:disagree:

392671799_06b6b950d0_z.jpg
ucibv6s.jpg
This OHIS way (Ostrich head in sand) to fire missile is the first and only one found on a jet.

It not only breaks the stealth, burns the stealth coating (lost the stealth after launch even door closed), but also damages the aerodynamic which means it may not be possible to fire the side bay missile at supersonic speed.

Worst is,the door must keep opening when fighting engaged.

You( and a lot of Chinese and Pakistanis) need to learn to debate with a cool head and focus on technicality.


I am not alien to Chinese equipment or capabilities. But you also need to look at where you stand.

I mistakenly said PL-12/SD-10 when I meant the chinese high agility missile that was supposedly in development.
PL-ASR-AAM-Illustration-1S.jpg
Thanks, you are great man.
 
And where is the technical proof in your argument for this?
Your countryman stuck to personal attacks instead of posting actual knowledge, would you like to follow him down the same path?

What technical proof do you need to know that the F-117 was shot down by cheap anti-aircraft weapons?

No amount of excuses or 'technicalities' can change the fact it got shot down.
End of story.

F-22 has never faced combat against any decent military so it's capabilities are highly unproven.

US military got embarrassed in the Vietnam War when Soviet SAMs made a complete and utter mockery of US air power.

US military and weapons are not as invincible as the propaganda of the Pentagon and Western media make it out to be.
 
How would you postulate that be done if the missile is the weapons bay? Say a AIM-9M in the F-22's side bay. The IR sensor is essentially shrouded? I know that the F-22 is able to provide targeting data(in caged mode) to the AIM-9M before it launches so the missile knows where to look for the target right after it comes out of the bay.
We should take a closer look at the different modes' description...

AIM-9 Sidewinder
One method of cueing the AIM-9X to the target’s IR energy source is referred to as boresight, whereby the missile is physically pointed toward the target via the pilot maneuvering the aircraft. The IR energy gathered by the missile seeker is converted to electronic signals that enable the missile to acquire and track the target up to its seeker gimbal limits.
This is the standard IR equipped missile operation.

A second method of cueing the AIM-9X to the target’s IR energy is the Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM). SEAM slaves the AIM-9X seeker to the aircraft radar. The aircraft avionics system can slave the missile seeker up to a given number of degrees from the missile/aircraft boresight axis. The missile seeker is slaved until an audible signal indicates seeker target acquisition. Upon target acquisition, a seeker interlock in the missile is released (uncaged) and the missile seeker begins tracking the target. The AIM-9X seeker will then continue to track the target.
A 'caged' status mean the sensor is not free to perform its own operations, virtually no difference than if the sensor is physically covered.

When the sensor is uncovered, its slaved/caged status mean even if it is able to detect environmental conditions that it was designed for, UNTIL (as highlighted) certain other conditions are met, it will remained slaved/caged to a 'master' sensor, if you will. That 'until' mean the sensor must pick up the target in the area as specified by the master sensor before it is allowed to operate freely.

Active sensor is 99% superior to passive sensor in 99% of environmental conditions, and it is 100% superior when target details are necessary. Does not matter if that active sensor is radar or your own skin. That 1% vulnerability is when the target performs some actions that can deceive the sensor. For example: P-leather, or pleather, manufacturing evolved to the point where 99% of the time, it requires a legal label in order for 99% of consumers to know they are looking at man-made leather. P-leather can be seen as 'countermeasure' to your sense of touch and knowledge of what is genuine leather -- from animal hides.

A passive sensor missile is designed for when we do not want the target to know he is being sought out by active methods and as defense produces countermeasures.

For the radar/IR integration system, the process know the IR sensor's physical limits and logical field-of-view (FOV), whether the IR sensor is physically covered or not. The slaved/caged status for the subordinate sensor (passive) is intended to eliminate, as much as possible, environmental conditions that could be distraction(s) once the passive sensor is released from that slaved/caged status. That guidance comes from the master sensor, which in this case is radar. Because the process integration know the FOVs of both sensors, that process integration can basically tell the radar (master) that even though the target is within the master's FOV, the target is still outside of the slave's FOV. Once the target is within the FOVs of both sensors, or despite outside of the slave's FOV but within some statistical bounds of ability to detect the target, the missile is released from the parent aircraft, and the slave sensor can be unslaved/uncaged from that tie.

A third method for cueing the AIM-9X to the target’s IR energy is through use of the JHMCS. This method allows the pilot to cue the AIM-9X seeker to high off-boresight targets via helmet movement.
If the FOV is the boresight, then the JHMCS method is spectacular in the sense that the master/slave integration ignores the slave's FOV limitations.

The pilot's head movement is much greater than his radar's mount. So if you look at this at the theoretical level, you can see different degrees of freedom of sensor movements: the IR missile have the least, the radar have more, and the pilot have the greatest. We have in association: passive, active, and passive.

In the JHMCS process integration, we have passive-passive sensors in the master-slave relationship. The pilot is the superior sensor in that the he can identify the target based upon visuals and he also has much greater degrees of freedom of movements. He commands the missile, with its passive sensor, to fly in the direction he wants, while the missile's IR sensor ignores all possible IR inputs, then once the missile's IR sensor is in the general direction of the target and the target's IR emission is within the sensor's FOV, the missile can be released from the master-slave tie.

You( and a lot of Chinese and Pakistanis) need to learn to debate with a cool head and focus on technicality.
We can only hope...
 
What technical proof do you need to know that the F-117 was shot down by cheap anti-aircraft weapons?

No amount of excuses or 'technicalities' can change the fact it got shot down.
End of story.

F-22 has never faced combat against any decent military so it's capabilities are highly unproven.

US military got embarrassed in the Vietnam War when Soviet SAMs made a complete and utter mockery of US air power.

US military and weapons are not as invincible as the propaganda of the Pentagon and Western media make it out to be.

The issue is not whether it was shot down by a Sa-3, but whether the shoot down was that simple. You still have not gotten to it and are generally just hiding behind the fact that it was shot down.Using your logic one can postulate then that since China has not been publishing accurate data on J-10 crashes, it must be a crappy aircraft that they are embarrassed..when the truth is not so.

The US military got embarrassed by a threat they did not estimate correctly and rules of engagement that tied their hands behind their back. That has little to do with what has occurred in later air combat and in every other monitored and public exersize around the world where the USAF has participated. It is your own foolishness to underestimate the US military, and contrary to your fanboyism.. I can testify through the little interaction I have with visiting Chinese military personell that they are much more respective of the capability of the USAF, IAF and the RoCAF. But then , they are professionals who know their job, and you dont.
 

Back
Top Bottom