YF-100 LOX kerosene Sea level thrust 124 tons rocket engine taxi test

[ptldM3]

China has the plan to build the rocket with huge LEO which rivals US.

Russia is simply out of the picture.

Do a little research before you spaut nonsense, Russia still has the highest trust rocket engine ever produced as well as a two decade old craft that surpasses any modern day Chinese rocket in LEO capacity.

 

[ptldM3]

yes, russia current status disappoint me too, when i look at their so called 5th gen fighter. may be their mitsubishi machine tool doesnt help when they r building a 5th gen fighter, not a su-27. but hey, they are successor of former super power, it wont hurt to expect a surprise from them. may be their current "5th gen fighter" is just a trick, to cheat indian for cash, then put the money on the real russian 5th gen fighter project, its brilliant if thats true.

Look in the J-20 canards and wing geometry before you talk about disapointment.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Do a little research before you spaut nonsense, Russia still has the highest trust rocket engine ever produced as well as a two decade old craft that surpasses any modern day Chinese rocket in LEO capacity.

Hey, US has the plan to build Ares V, so don't tell that Russia has the ability to build that $hit right now.

 

[ptldM3]

Hey, US has the plan to build Ares V, so don't tell that Russia has the ability to build that $hit right now.

Hey, the US also purchases Russian rockets, suprise, suprise! As resently as the 1990's Russian rocket technology surpassed the US which prompted the US to purchase the RD-180, and this is according to an American.

I also hope you are not comparing China with Russia and claiming we are 'out of the picture'.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Hey, the US also purchases Russian rockets, suprise, suprise! As resently as the 1990's Russian rocket technology surpassed the US which prompted the US to purchase the RD-180, and this is according to an American.

I also hope you are not comparing China with Russia and claiming we are 'out of the picture'.

It is because Russian rocket is cheaper for small LEO payload.

US has created the Saturn, whereas USSR failed to accomplish its Energia.

 

[ptldM3]

Russian rocket is cheaper for small LEO payload.

The RD-180 was the most officient rocket engines ever produced, atleast when the west discovered it, so in that case it can be said to be cheaper due to high officiency.

US has created the Saturn, whereas USSR failed to accomplish its Energia.

Wrong, the Energia made several flight but was altimately cancelled, case in point, the USSR did not fail, the Energia was constructed and it did reach orbit.

 

[ptldM3]

Hey, US has the plan to build Ares V, so don't tell that Russia has the ability to build that $hit right now.

One more thing the Ares is a cancelled project, i didn't even exist, it was a concept, Russia also has many concepts, for what it matters they can have a 200 ton LEO concept but why is that relivant if it's only a concept?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

One more thing the Ares is a cancelled project, i didn't even exist, it was a concept.

It was temporarily pushed back because of the lack of funds.

But Obama is promising that the Mars landing project would not be cancelled. Therefore, they need Ares V.

 

[ptldM3]

It was temporarily pushed back because of the lack of funds.

But Obama is promising that the Mars landing would not be cancelled. Therefore, they need Ares V.

What is temporary, late 2020's? And Obama can promise all he wants, NASA has its own committee and boards that make decisions, also Obama's promises mean squat, unless, of course, he will be president in 2030...

 

[Aramsogo]

I think he means N-1 doesn't match Saturn V.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I think he means N-1 doesn't match Saturn V.

N-2 was supposed to surpass Saturn V, even close at the level of Ares V.

 

[malllawcha]

Look in the J-20 canards and wing geometry before you talk about disapointment.

i think how much the j-20 canards contribute to rcs increase is much less than the t-50 su-27 style 2 pieces canopy, su-27 style buble irst, exposed engine fan all three combined. and dont steal americans tech radar blocker. where is ur plasma stealth btw?

when soviet union roll out their toy, their fanboy, countryman have to take effort to defend it? what happen to t-50? may be its simple, u r not soviet union.

 

[Akasa]

Look in the J-20 canards and wing geometry before you talk about disapointment.

The canards adds greater maneuverability to the airframe, which is larger, so the J-20 is able to carry more weapons yet retain its high maneuverability, especially during low altitude fights.

Apart from the canards (which don't contribute much RCS at all), the overall stealth shaping, the flat underside of the fuselage, the one-piece canopy, the intakes, the stealth geometry, and the constant airfoil angles makes the stealth design much more effective than that of the T-50.

Canards don't matter much at all, especially when they are RAM-coated.

Carlo Kopp and Fisher make an excellent analysis from what images we have of the J-20.

 

[ptldM3]

i think how much the j-20 canards contribute to rcs increase is much less than the t-50 su-27 style 2 pieces canopy,

Not this fanboy garbage again, firstly, multiply peice canopies are used in the B-2 and silent eagle, they were also used in the F-117 as well as many American stealth prototypes such as the YF-23; a single peice canopy eliminates the need for a joint. However, all aircraft have joints whether it's access panels, bays, or flaps, so while the J-20 may have no canopy joint it may very well have more overal joints, so now the point becomes mute. Further, aircraft that do have multi peice canopies tend to have canted joints so that the EM does not come back to the receiver.

su-27 style buble irst,

Are you making this up or are you going off of what J-20 fanboys tell you? A sphere, like that of an IRST, is ideal at dissspating EM energy, and that can be varified:

4.3 Radar Cross Section (RCS)



So an IRST of about 6" has a rcs of 0.018 M2

exposed engine fan all three combined.

And who said they would be exposed?

and dont steal americans tech radar blocker.

A Chinese talking about not stealing

By your logic the J-20 should not steal canards from the Rafale or all moving vertical stabs from the pak-fa, or a single peice canopy from the F-22, do you see how silly you sound?

Also by your logic China is stealing Russian tech by simply attempting to built a 'steath' aircraft because the stealth formula was writen by a Russian, this is how the American were able to create the F-117, an aircraft that used radar blockers

where is ur plasma stealth btw?

What do you care? Even if it was present on the pak-fa it's not as if the designers would throw a parade acknowledging the aircraft had 'plasma stealth'.

Apart from the canards (which don't contribute much RCS at all), the overall stealth shaping, the flat underside of the fuselage, the one-piece canopy, the intakes, the stealth geometry, and the constant airfoil angles makes the stealth design much more effective than that of the T-50.

Canards don't matter much at all, especially when they are RAM-coated.

Carlo Kopp and Fisher make an excellent analysis from what images we have of the J-20.

Regarding canards, a conventional aircraft is a continues surface, so when the EM wave traverses the body of a conventional aircraft the EM energy scatters or diffracts when it reaches an abrupt area (like the end or edge of a wing). When this scattering happens the EM energy spreads out in a conical fashion (edge diffraction) on most aircraft the edge diffraction occurs so that the EM energy is directed away from the aircraft, usually this is when most EM energy scatters off of the horizontal stabilizer. The J-20's canards can pose a problem because they are not a continues surface, instead they abruptly stop and cause edge diffraction to occur in front of the aircraft as opposed to behind it.

Regarding flat fusalage, a flat fusalage is the simplest and cleanest form of dispersal, the pak-fa's fusalage is complex. For instance, the F-117 used extensive and complex geometry to scatter EM energy while the F-22 took a simple approach to scatter EM energy, both methods work.

The single canopy nonesense is just fanboy hogwash that you ate up.

And the J-20's wing geometry, not only canards have very little edge diffraction points where as aircraft such as the F-22 and pak-fa do not have this problem.

 

[Akasa]

Regarding canards, a conventional aircraft is a continues surface, so when the EM wave traverses the body of a conventional aircraft the EM energy scatters or diffracts when it reaches an abrupt area (like the end or edge of a wing). When this scattering happens the EM energy spreads out in a conical fashion (edge diffraction) on most aircraft the edge diffraction occurs so that the EM energy is directed away from the aircraft, usually this is when most EM energy scatters off of the horizontal stabilizer. The J-20's canards can pose a problem because they are not a continues surface, instead they abruptly stop and cause edge diffraction to occur in front of the aircraft as opposed to behind it.

The canards on an aircraft diffract the radar waves backwards in an expanding cone shape (knife edge effect). The diffracted electromagnetic waves do not radiate in front of the aircraft, but towards the back. Think if it like putting a rock in a stream. The ripples don't propagate in front of the rock, but outwards and away behind it. You wouldn't feel the ripples if you put your finger in front of the rock. It's the same thing with the J-20. The waves are not propagating towards the front, but towards the rear. As the J-20 is a mainly strike fighter, that is okay because it's the front that will be
exposed to enemy radar.

Even if the canards do cause some problems, it is compensated by the fact that the J-20 does not require for horizontal stabilizers (unlike F-22, T-50, and F-35). The canards also add much more maneuverability.

Regarding flat fusalage, a flat fusalage is the simplest and cleanest form of dispersal, the pak-fa's fusalage is complex. For instance, the F-117 used extensive and complex geometry to scatter EM energy while the F-22 took a simple approach to scatter EM energy, both methods work.

The "complex" fuselage of the T-50 ensures nothing but a greater chance of an increased underside RCS. The intake ridges will severely cause radar diffraction and so will the gaps between the intakes and the centroplane. The T-50 takes its airframe from the Flanker family, and frankly, that's about the worst decision you could make if you take RCS as a priority.

However, I think Russian designers emphasize power and speed over stealth and agility. And the T-50 fits that role.

The single canopy nonesense is just fanboy hogwash that you ate up.

Canopies have to be made out of a material that allows electromagnetic waves to pass through it unhampered. This means that no metal can be present anywhere on the canopy. That's why aircraft like the F-22, J-20, and F-35 all have sloped single-piece canopies. As soon as metal is present, that translates to a few more digits that you are going to have to add to your RCS number. T-50 uses a sliding canopy that has to rely on metal, which will undoubtly increase its RCS.

And the J-20's wing geometry, not only canards have very little edge diffraction points where as aircraft such as the F-22 and pak-fa do not have this problem.

Speaking of the J-20's wing geometry, the surface is very smooth and consistent, while the T-50 and F-35 have constant bumps and flaps. The T-50, F-22, and F-35 also have horizontal stabilizers that will light up an enemy's radar like a Christmas tree from the rear.
The J-20's airfoils are swept at the same angle, something which the T-50's airfoils severely lacks.

Have you read Carlo Kopp's or Sweetman's articles?