# Russian media:J20's stealth capability is far better than F-35 and pakfa



## giant panda

The J-20, China's fifth-generation stealth fighter, is able to penetrate US air defense systems, according to a report from Russia's Military Analysis.

*The report said that the stealth technology used by the J-20 is very similar to that used by the American F-22A. Its stealth capability is far better than the F-35 and even the Russian-built PAK FA fighter, *it said. Considered a fighter-bomber similar to the US F-111 of the Cold War ear, the J-20's range would enable it to reach the Pacific second island chain of the Philippines and Guam. With mid-air refueling it could be extended further.

The J-20 already boasts better aerodynamic performance than the F-35, F-18A and F-18E/F currently used by the various branches of the US armed forces. The report said that between 400 and 500 J-20 aircraft will be produced to replace the Su-27SK and Su-33MKK currently deployed by the PLA Air Force.

*russian link*: ÐÑÐµÐ´Ð²Ð°ÑÐ¸ÑÐµÐ»ÑÐ½Ð°Ñ Ð¾ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ° Ð¿ÑÐ¾ÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸Ð¿Ð° Ð¼Ð°Ð»Ð¾Ð·Ð°Ð¼ÐµÑÐ½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ ÐºÐ¸ÑÐ°Ð¹ÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¸ÑÑÑÐµÐ±Ð¸ÑÐµÐ»Ñ Chengdu J-XX [J-20] » ÐÐ¾ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾Ðµ Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð·ÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ

&#1058;&#1077;&#1093;&#1085;&#1080;&#1095;&#1077;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1077; &#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1095;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1086; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1080;&#1087;&#1072;
J-XX/J-20 &#1103;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1090;&#1103;&#1078;&#1077;&#1083;&#1099;&#1084; &#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1073;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1084;, &#1089;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1085;&#1080;&#1084;&#1099;&#1084; &#1087;&#1086; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072;&#1084; &#1089; F-111. &#1055;&#1077;&#1088;&#1074;&#1099;&#1081; &#1086;&#1073;&#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1077;&#1094; &#1086;&#1073;&#1083;&#1072;&#1076;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1080;&#1084; &#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1091;&#1075;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1086;&#1084; &#1087;&#1086; &#1089;&#1093;&#1077;&#1084;&#1077; "&#1091;&#1090;&#1082;&#1072;" &#1089; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1078;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084; &#1091;&#1075;&#1083;&#1086;&#1084; &#1087;&#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1042;&#1069;, &#1089; &#1087;&#1072;&#1088;&#1086;&#1081; &#1085;&#1072;&#1082;&#1083;&#1086;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1078;&#1091;/&#1085;&#1072;&#1079;&#1072;&#1076; &#1087;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1090;&#1080;&#1082;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086;/&#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1080;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1093;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1087;&#1072;&#1088;&#1086;&#1081; &#1087;&#1086;&#1093;&#1086;&#1078;&#1080;&#1093; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1080;&#1093; &#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1080;&#1093; &#1087;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1079;&#1072;&#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;, &#1082;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1099;&#1077; &#1077;&#1089;&#1083;&#1080; &#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072; &#1089;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1081;&#1085;&#1086;&#1084; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1077; &#1090;&#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103;&#1076;&#1091; &#1089; &#1093;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1084; &#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;&#1084; &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1072;&#1090; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1091; &#1074;&#1077;&#1089;&#1100;&#1084;&#1072; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1099;&#1077; &#1074;&#1086;&#1079;&#1084;&#1086;&#1078;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1074; &#1086;&#1073;&#1083;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1091;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1080; &#1084;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1074;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;. &#1053;&#1077;&#1089;&#1086;&#1084;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086; &#1090;&#1072;&#1082;&#1072;&#1103; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1092;&#1080;&#1075;&#1091;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1072;&#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1072; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1093;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1096;&#1077;&#1081; &#1091;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1081;&#1095;&#1080;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1085;&#1072; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1084; &#1088;&#1077;&#1078;&#1080;&#1084;&#1077; &#1089; &#1087;&#1086;&#1076;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1103;&#1097;&#1080;&#1084; &#1090;&#1080;&#1087;&#1086;&#1084; &#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;, &#1072; &#1090;&#1072;&#1082;&#1078;&#1077; &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090; &#1093;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1096;&#1080;&#1077; &#1084;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1074;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1093;&#1072;&#1088;&#1072;&#1082;&#1090;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1082;&#1080; &#1085;&#1072; &#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1085;&#1089;-&#1080; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1093; &#1088;&#1077;&#1078;&#1080;&#1084;&#1072;&#1093;.

&#1041;&#1077;&#1079; &#1089;&#1086;&#1084;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086; &#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1096;&#1077;, &#1095;&#1077;&#1084; &#1085;&#1072; &#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1084; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1080;&#1087;&#1077; &#1058;-50 &#1055;&#1040;&#1050; &#1060;&#1040; &#1080; &#1090;&#1077;&#1084; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1077; &#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1096;&#1077; &#1095;&#1077;&#1084; &#1085;&#1072; &#1079;&#1072;&#1087;&#1091;&#1089;&#1082;&#1072;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1084; &#1074; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1080;&#1079;&#1074;&#1086;&#1076;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086; F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

&#1050;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; J-XX/J-20 &#1087;&#1086;-&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1080;&#1084;&#1086;&#1084;&#1091; &#1074; &#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1087;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080; &#1073;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072; &#1086;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1072; &#1085;&#1072; &#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1080;&#1083;&#1072;&#1093; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1080;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; F-22A Raptor:

&#1053;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1089;&#1077;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1082;&#1080;&#1090;&#1072;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; J-XX/J-20 &#1080; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072; &#1092;&#1086;&#1085;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103; &#1073;&#1083;&#1080;&#1079;&#1082;&#1080; &#1087;&#1086; &#1074;&#1085;&#1077;&#1096;&#1085;&#1077;&#1084;&#1091; &#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1091; &#1082; F-22, &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1089;&#1093;&#1086;&#1078;&#1091;&#1102; &#1089;&#1080;&#1075;&#1085;&#1072;&#1090;&#1091;&#1088;&#1091; &#1091;&#1078;&#1077; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080;.

&#1058;&#1088;&#1072;&#1087;&#1077;&#1094;&#1080;&#1077;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1080; &#1074;&#1086;&#1079;&#1076;&#1091;&#1093;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1088;&#1085;&#1080;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074; &#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1081; J-XX/J-20 &#1087;&#1086;&#1093;&#1086;&#1078;&#1080; &#1085;&#1072; F-22, &#1093;&#1086;&#1090;&#1103; &#1080; &#1082;&#1072;&#1078;&#1091;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1080;&#1084;&#1080; &#1080; &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1086;&#1084;&#1080;&#1085;&#1072;&#1102;&#1097;&#1080;&#1084;&#1080; &#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1083;&#1100; DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) F-35, &#1086;&#1095;&#1077;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1085;&#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#8203;&#8203;&#1085;&#1072; &#1091;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1100;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1086;&#1082; &#1074;&#1086;&#1079;&#1076;&#1091;&#1093;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1088;&#1085;&#1080;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074; &#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1083;&#1103; F-22.

*&#1048;&#1084;&#1077;&#1102;&#1097;&#1072;&#1103; &#1088;&#1077;&#1096;&#1072;&#1102;&#1097;&#1077;&#1077; &#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072; &#1082;&#1088;&#1077;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1100;&#1077;&#1074; &#1082; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1091; J-XX/J-20 &#1086;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1100; &#1087;&#1086;&#1093;&#1086;&#1078;&#1072; &#1085;&#1072; F-22 &#1080; &#1103;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1080;&#1090; &#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1080;&#1087; &#1058;-50 &#1055;&#1040;&#1050; &#1060;&#1040; &#1080; &#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1082;&#1072;&#1085;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1073;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100; F -35 Joint Strike.(english The report said that the stealth technology used by the J-20 is very similar to that used by the American F-22A.Its stealth capability is far better than the F-35 and even the Russian-built PAK FA fighter,)*

&#1055;&#1083;&#1086;&#1089;&#1082;&#1072;&#1103; &#1085;&#1080;&#1078;&#1085;&#1103;&#1103; &#1095;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1072; J-XX/J-20 &#1103;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1086;&#1087;&#1090;&#1080;&#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1074;&#1089;&#1077;&#1093; &#1072;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074; &#1096;&#1080;&#1088;&#1086;&#1082;&#1086;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1080; &#1090;&#1077;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086; &#1080;&#1084;&#1080;&#1090;&#1080;&#1088;&#1091;&#1077;&#1090; &#1076;&#1080;&#1079;&#1072;&#1081;&#1085; F-22.

&#1060;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072; &#1074; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077; J-XX/J-20 &#1087;&#1086;&#1082;&#1072;&#1079;&#1099;&#1074;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090; &#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086;&#1077; &#1091;&#1075;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1077; &#1074;&#1099;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1085;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1084;&#1077;&#1078;&#1076;&#1091; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1080;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1087;&#1077;p&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;p&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072; &#1080; &#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086;&#1077; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1077; &#1091;&#1075;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1077; &#1074;&#1099;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1085;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1082;&#1088;&#1072;&#1103; &#1084;&#1077;&#1078;&#1076;&#1091; &#1079;&#1072;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1080;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1079;&#1072;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;p&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072;. &#1057;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1080; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072; &#1089;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1090; ~ 43°, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086; &#1103;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1072;&#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1101;&#1092;&#1092;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1080;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072;.

&#1055;&#1088;&#1080; &#1089;&#1086;&#1079;&#1076;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080; &#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1093; &#1080; &#1086;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1082; &#1096;&#1072;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080; J-XX/J-20 &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1079;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1083;&#1072;&#1089;&#1100; &#1086;&#1087;&#1090;&#1080;&#1084;&#1080;&#1079;&#1080;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1085;&#1072;&#1103; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1061;-&#1076;&#1080;&#1072;&#1087;&#1072;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085;&#1072; &#1079;&#1091;&#1073;&#1095;&#1072;&#1090;&#1072;&#1103; &#1090;&#1077;&#1093;&#1085;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1075;&#1080;&#1103; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1080;, &#1086;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1085;&#1072;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080; F-117A &#1080; F-22.

&#1050;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1095;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1072;, &#1093;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1077; &#1073;&#1072;&#1083;&#1082;&#1080;, &#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1073;&#1080;&#1083;&#1080;&#1079;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1099;/ &#1088;&#1077;&#1073;&#1088;&#1072;, &#1072;&#1089;&#1080;&#1084;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1088;&#1080;&#1095;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1089;&#1086;&#1087;&#1083;&#1072;, &#1085;&#1077; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1084;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1084;&#1099;&#1093; &#1089; &#1101;&#1092;&#1092;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1080;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100;&#1102;, &#1085;&#1086; &#1084;&#1086;&#1075;&#1091;&#1090; &#1089;&#1083;&#1091;&#1078;&#1080;&#1090;&#1100; &#1083;&#1080;&#1096;&#1100; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1077;&#1078;&#1091;&#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084; &#1088;&#1077;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;&#1084; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1091;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1099;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1081; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1080;&#1087;&#1072;.

&#1050;&#1086;&#1085;&#1092;&#1080;&#1075;&#1091;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072; &#1080; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1099; &#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1099; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1072; &#1089;&#1086;&#1086;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1091;&#1077;&#1090; &#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1083;&#1102; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080; &#1089;&#1086;&#1087;&#1083;&#1072; &#1089; &#1080;&#1079;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1103;&#1077;&#1084;&#1099;&#1084; &#1074;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084; &#1090;&#1103;&#1075;&#1080; F-22A &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1103;&#1084;&#1086;&#1091;&#1075;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1089;&#1086;&#1087;&#1083;&#1072; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1072;&#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1088;&#1086;&#1083;&#1080;&#1088;&#1091;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1081; &#1084;&#1086;&#1076;&#1077;&#1083;&#1080; &#1080;&#1085;&#1092;&#1088;&#1072;&#1082;&#1088;&#1072;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1080;&#1079;&#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1088;&#1072;&#1076;&#1080;&#1086;&#1095;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1089;&#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;.

&#1050;&#1086;&#1085;&#1092;&#1080;&#1075;&#1091;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1084;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1084;&#1072; &#1089; &#1087;&#1086;&#1076;&#1092;&#1080;&#1079;&#1102;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084;, &#1087;&#1086;&#1076;&#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084; &#1080; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1084;&#1077;&#1097;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;&#1084; &#1086;&#1088;&#1091;&#1078;&#1080;&#1103; &#1074;&#1086; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1080;&#1093; &#1086;&#1090;&#1089;&#1077;&#1082;&#1072;&#1093; &#1080; &#1103;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1076;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1086;&#1081;, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086;&#1073;&#1099; &#1089;&#1086;&#1086;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100; &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1074; &#1090;&#1086;&#1081; &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1080;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1087;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1080;&#1090;&#1100; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1102;&#1102; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1079;&#1085;&#1091;&#1102; &#1085;&#1072;&#1075;&#1088;&#1091;&#1079;&#1082;&#1091; F-22A Raptor.

&#1054;&#1073;&#1098;&#1077;&#1084; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1084;&#1077;&#1097;&#1072;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1080; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072; &#1090;&#1086;&#1087;&#1083;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072; &#1090;&#1072;&#1082;&#1078;&#1077; &#1084;&#1086;&#1078;&#1077;&#1090; &#1086;&#1082;&#1072;&#1079;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100;&#1089;&#1103; &#1074;&#1099;&#1089;&#1086;&#1082;&#1080;&#1084; &#1091;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090;&#1099;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1092;&#1080;&#1075;&#1091;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1102; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1072; &#1080; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1080;&#1077; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1086;&#1073;&#1098;&#1077;&#1084;&#1099; &#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1091;&#1075;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1077;&#1074;. &#1069;&#1090;&#1086; &#1089;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1077;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1091;&#1077;&#1090; &#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080; &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090;&#1100; &#1074;&#1086;&#1079;&#1084;&#1086;&#1078;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1091;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1081;&#1095;&#1080;&#1074;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1082;&#1088;&#1077;&#1081;&#1089;&#1077;&#1088;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072;.

&#1050;&#1080;&#1090;&#1072;&#1081;&#1094;&#1099; &#1085;&#1077; &#1088;&#1072;&#1089;&#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1074;&#1072;&#1102;&#1090; &#1090;&#1080;&#1087; &#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;. &#1057;&#1091;&#1097;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1091;&#1077;&#1090; &#1084;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086; &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1079;&#1091;&#1102;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1077; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1077; &#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1080; &#1089;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1080; 117&#1057;, &#1093;&#1086;&#1090;&#1103; &#1089; &#1091;&#1095;&#1077;&#1090;&#1086;&#1084; &#1086;&#1073;&#1097;&#1077;&#1081; &#1101;&#1092;&#1092;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1080;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1072;&#1101;&#1088;&#1086;&#1076;&#1080;&#1085;&#1072;&#1084;&#1080;&#1082;&#1080; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072;, &#1080;&#1093;, &#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1077;&#1077; &#1074;&#1089;&#1077;&#1075;&#1086;, &#1073;&#1091;&#1076;&#1077;&#1090; &#1085;&#1077;&#1076;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086; &#1095;&#1090;&#1086;&#1073;&#1099; &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1079;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100; &#1074;&#1077;&#1089;&#1100; &#1087;&#1086;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1094;&#1080;&#1072;&#1083; &#1101;&#1090;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072;.

&#1053;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1088; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1080;&#1093; &#1076;&#1072;&#1090;&#1095;&#1080;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074; &#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1085;&#1077;&#1080;&#1079;&#1074;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;. &#1050;&#1080;&#1090;&#1072;&#1081; &#1076;&#1086; &#1089;&#1080;&#1093; &#1087;&#1086;&#1088; &#1085;&#1077; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1076;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1080;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1083; &#1088;&#1072;&#1076;&#1072;&#1088; &#1040;&#1060;&#1040;&#1056; &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1091;&#1102; &#1089;&#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1084;&#1091; &#1086;&#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1084;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1078;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080;&#1079;&#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1072;&#1102;&#1097;&#1080;&#1093; &#1056;&#1069;&#1057;. &#1058;&#1077;&#1084; &#1085;&#1077; &#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1077;&#1077;, &#1086;&#1085;&#1080; &#1084;&#1086;&#1075;&#1091;&#1090; &#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100; &#1076;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1091;&#1087;&#1085;&#1099; &#1082; &#1084;&#1086;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1090;&#1091; &#1087;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1091;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072; &#1085;&#1072; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1080;&#1079;&#1074;&#1086;&#1076;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086;. &#1057;&#1086;&#1086;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1091;&#1102;&#1097;&#1077;&#1077; &#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1077; &#1086;&#1073;&#1086;&#1088;&#1091;&#1076;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1074; &#1085;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1103;&#1097;&#1077;&#1077; &#1074;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1080;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072; &#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1076;&#1080;&#1080; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1088;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1082;&#1080; &#1080;/ &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1099;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1081;.

Reactions: Like Like:

18


----------



## Martian2

I have been making the same claim with my analyses during the past year.

----------

From my July 9, 2012 post:

*JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) is inferior to J-20 Mighty Dragon*

1. JSF does not have supercruise capability.

2. JSF is not an all-aspect stealth fighter. It has less-stealthy LOAN (low observable asymmetric nozzle) nozzles. The flat nozzles on the F-22 are the best design for radar and infrared stealth.

The J-20 is likely to install flat nozzles when the powerful WS-15 engine is ready, because it is the only feature where it is clearly inferior to the F-22.

3. JSF has bumps along its entire bottom. There is also a large protrusion above the left airduct for the cannon on the F-35A, which makes it less stealthy.

4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.

5. The combat radius is only half of the J-20.

6. JSF lacks internal side weapon bays.

7. The JSF is significantly smaller in physical size and can only carry a much smaller radar with less T/R (transmit/receive) modules. Since it has only one engine, the available power to the radar is also significantly less.

The JSF radar is clearly inferior to the F-22 and a J-20 equipped with AESA radar.

8. The J-20 will be able to look down and shoot missiles (with better kinematics or more kinetic energy) at the lower flying F-35. The service ceiling of the J-20 is 65,617 ft. It is only 60,000 ft. for the F-35.

In conclusion, the JSF is no match for the J-20. The battle plan is for the F-22 to engage the J-20. However, there are only 187 F-22s. The military balance may shift if China produces 300 or more J-20s in the future (circa 2018).

Sensor fusion doesn't mean much when the J-20 has a larger radar and greater detection range than the F-35. Furthermore, the J-20 has a cleaner design and is stealthier than the F-35. Sending a F-35 against the J-20 is unwise.

-----

*
Latest J-20 "2002" Mighty Dragon photographs*





Notice the gold transparent RAM on the J-20 cockpit canopy. Only China and the U.S. have this advanced material science technology.





The prominent DSI (diverterless supersonic inlet) strake was probably extensively modeled with Chinese supercomputers.





When the WS-15 engine is ready in a few years, China can replace the J-20 LOAN nozzles with flat nozzles. The J-20 will be good to go against the F-22.

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]

----------

From my March 14, 2012 post:

*Su-30 is not stealthy. Therefore T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.*

Everyone agrees the Su-30 is not stealthy. In the following picture, I have identified 10 important non-stealth features of the Su-30. Interestingly, the T-50/Pak-Fa has the exact same 10 non-stealth features.

It seems to me there are only two logical choices. Either you agree with me that the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. Or you can make the incredible claim that both the T-50 and Su-30 are stealthy. I leave the choice to you.





Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.





In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## thesaltpit

The J-20 looks quite good, however the biggest point (quite literally) is the size. It is enormous and looks no where near as aerodynamically efficient as the F-22. It's more of a tactical bomber than a front-line fighter which can carry out CAP ops.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.Rafay



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## anon45

Because they would have information on the F-22 and F-35's capabilities right? 

Is there an english version of the site? Better yet is there a named official or is this all anonymous?

edit:
Oh god just read the translated version, the writer?....


*FRIGGIN CARLO KOPP*






This guy is a known hack, and Australian, unaffiliated with anything having to do with Russian military analysis.

If thats not bad enough the 'sources' for his information? "There can be no doubt" "It is Obvious", and my favorite, "any comparisons are simply absurd"

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Vassnti

&#1053;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1089;&#1077;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1082;&#1080;&#1090;&#1072;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; J-XX/J-20 &#1080; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072; &#1092;&#1086;&#1085;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103; &#1073;&#1083;&#1080;&#1079;&#1082;&#1080; &#1087;&#1086; &#1074;&#1085;&#1077;&#1096;&#1085;&#1077;&#1084;&#1091; &#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1091; &#1082; F-22, &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1089;&#1093;&#1086;&#1078;&#1091;&#1102; &#1089;&#1080;&#1075;&#1085;&#1072;&#1090;&#1091;&#1088;&#1091; &#1091;&#1078;&#1077; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080;.

:ROFL

So he looked at a couple of pictures and thought the nose looked similar so the stealth capabilities must be the same 
Sorry Anon a single palm is not nearly sufficient.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amalakas

anon45 said:


> Because they would have information on the F-22 and F-35's capabilities right?
> 
> Is there an english version of the site? Better yet is there a named official or is this all anonymous?
> 
> edit:
> Oh god just read the translated version, the writer?....
> 
> 
> *FRIGGIN CARLO KOPP*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is a known hack, and Australian, unaffiliated with anything having to do with Russian military analysis.
> 
> If thats not bad enough the 'sources' for his information? "There can be no doubt" "It is Obvious", and my favorite, "any comparisons are simply absurd"




It is their standard evaluation. Everything new that comes out is better than the F-35. Personally I don't like the F-35, but I think a pattern is emerging with APA.


----------



## ptldM3

First Russian media is garbage that can not be trusted than when it suits Chinese agenda&#8217;s it&#8217;s credible--of course.





Martian2 said:


> *Su-30 is not stealthy. Therefore T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.*
> 
> Everyone agrees the Su-30 is not stealthy. In the following picture, I have identified 10 important non-stealth features of the Su-30. Interestingly, the T-50/Pak-Fa has the exact same 10 non-stealth features.
> 
> It seems to me there are only two logical choices. Either you agree with me that the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. Or you can make the incredible claim that both the T-50 and Su-30 are stealthy. I leave the choice to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.





Give it a rest and stop pounding your chest with the same fan boys claims. The SU-30 is not the pak-fa. Most of those features are ridiculous, and many can be found on the J-20 as well.

Interesting how you claim a round shape reflects radar, also interesting that the J-20 has round nozzles. vents do not increase RCS, there is no scientific basis for that claim, the YF-23 had vents, the F-117 had vents.

And stop with the same &#8216;metal frame&#8217; garbage. A metal frame in the canopy does not increase RCS. It is an additional discontinuity, similar how the J-20&#8217;s airbrake is a discontinuity.

I also fail to see how the pak-fa has the &#8216;same round and tall SU-30 fuselage&#8216;. It&#8217;s not round firstly, secondly it is nothing alike to the SU-30&#8217;s fuselage. I would like for you to support your claim with a source. What &#8216;stealthy principle does the fuselage violate? Just so you know the YF-23 had a similar bump behind the canopy, it also had a two piece canopy, and it compressor blades were even visible from certain angles, yet it had a small RCS than the YF22.

As for the uneven lower fuselage, I doubt that you even know what principle that falls under. The reason some people criticize the fuselage is because it may be a corner reflector--than again you did not know that. The J-20&#8217;s tail fins are also present corner reflectors, as is the areas between the intake and fuselage--again you did not know this. So while the uneven fuselage may present a corner reflector, there is nothing suggesting that it would be a corner reflector that would have a high enough intensity to do anything of significance. Lets me put it this way, it would only present itself at a very limited angle, if it does present itself the corner reflector may be too weak to do anything. And this is if we give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the pak-fa flies right into a radar network which is not how missions are conducted. And you did not know this either.

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> 4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.






Post a source for that claim last time i checked the F-35's materials were the most advanced materials available, and they were very expensive, the only reason that the materials came out to be 'cheap' was because the manufacturing process reduced the price.

Than again i mentioned this to you before, and you still dishonestly stand by the same claim for which you have no factual basis. It's just something you made up just like you have made up many tall claims about the pak-fa.


Be, careful making claims. We can also make claims about th J-20 and its canards, nozzles, tail fins, concave surfaces, and 'bumps'.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## ptldM3

Esc8781 said:


> Any proof?



Some random Russian webpage that copies Copp's verbal spewage is the proof. This is the same guy that claimed that the SU-35 is beter than the F-35, so if the pak-fa is a quanum leap over the SU-35, than where does that put the J-20? According to him the maneuverability and 'kenetics' from the SU-35 can defeate the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> Post a source for that claim last time i checked the F-35's materials were the most advanced materials available, and they were very expensive, the only reason that the materials came out to be 'cheap' was because the manufacturing process reduced the price.
> 
> Than again i mentioned this to you before, and you still dishonestly stand by the same claim for which you have no factual basis. It's just something you made up just like you have made up many tall claims about the pak-fa.
> 
> 
> Be, careful making claims. We can also make claims about th J-20 and its canards, nozzles, tail fins, concave surfaces, and 'bumps'.



*Is it not obvious that a $100 million F-35 is cheaper than a $300 million F-22?*

You must be retarded.

It is common knowledge the F-22 costs about $250 to $400 million per plane. The somewhat smaller F-35 only costs about $100 million per plane. Any idiot can readily conclude that a $100 million F-35 plane is made of cheaper materials than a far more stealthy $300 million F-22.

For example, do you need me to provide you with a citation for the F-22's complex multi-layered stealthy 600-pound applied-coat outer skin? The F-35 does not have this F-22 feature. Instead, the F-35 has a cheaper and less stealthy outer skin. This is common knowledge.

Has it occurred to your stupid brain that if the F-35 is made of the same quality materials as the F-22 then it should be just as stealthy as the F-22 (which the F-35 is not)?

I don't understand how you can be so stupid. Isn't it widely known that a $10,000 Russian Lada is made of cheaper materials than a $30,000 Mercedes Benz?

----------

An older citation from Popular Science (a mainstream publication), but it proves the F-35 was designed to use cheaper materials that lead to a higher RCS.

http://www.popsci.com/military-avia...-02/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-and-f-22-raptor

" F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor
*What's the difference between the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor?*
Posted 02.28.2003

The two aircraft are indeed difficult to tell apart, because they share similar wing and tail designs, as well as distinctive engine inlets beneath the cockpit. The differences are in capabilities, performance and *materials*.

The F-22 Raptor, designed for the United States Air Force, is a twin-engine fighter intended primarily for air-to-air combat but also capable of attacking ground targets. It will be the stealthiest aircraft ever; thanks to new low-radar-observable designs and materials, engineers were able to lose the all-black, oddly shaped configurations of the F-117 Stealth Fighter and B-2 Bomber in favor of a more conventional design.

The Raptor, which should enter service in 2005, also features supercruise, the ability to sustain supersonic flight without the use of fuel-gulping afterburners.

The Joint Strike Fighter, meanwhile, is being developed in three different versions -- for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. Expected to debut in 2009, it's a single-engine aircraft that is optimized for ground attack. (The Marine Corps' version will have vertical-lift capability, so it will be able to take off and land in extremely tight spaces.)

Another key difference: cost. The Joint Strike Fighter has a $35 million price tag, while the faster, stealthier Raptor will set the Air Force back $120 million apiece. In combat, though, the two won't be so far apart. Future scenarios envision them working in tandem: The Raptor will knock down the door -- taking out air defenses and radar sites -- and then the Joint Strike Fighter will launch strikes against ground targets."

----------

Feel free to read the primary sources in the footnotes of the following citation.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[210] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[211] The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of *compromises in design*. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.[211] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[212] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[213][214]"

----------

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/22-fighter-pilots-battle-mysterious-raptor-cough/story?id=16303962

"abcnews.go.com &#8250; Investigative Unit
May 9, 2012 &#8211; *Last year the Air Force grounded the full fleet of F-22s, which cost U.S. taxpayers more than an estimated $420 million each*, for nearly five ..."

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012...f-f-35-that-canada-and-others-are-purchasing/

"Mar 30, 2012 &#8211; *The Canadian government continues to quote a figure of $75 million per F-35A.* This figure is the &#8220;unit recurring flyaway cost&#8221; (URFC) of the ..."


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> *Is it not obvious that a $100 million F-35 is cheaper than a $300 million F-22?* You must be retarded.









So what does the price disparity between the F-35 and F22 have to do with materials? Or their effect on stealth? And The F-35 is 197-237 million depending on model, and the F-22 is 150 million, those are official number, so who is the retard 









Martian2 said:


> *It is common knowledge *the F-22 costs about $250 to $400 million per plane. The somewhat smaller F-35 only costs about $100 million per plane.





It&#8217;s common knowledge that you make crap up. Try something official like this:


http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf


http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf








Martian2 said:


> *Any idiot *can readily conclude that a $100 million F-35 plane is made of cheaper materials than a far more stealthy $300 million F-22.





Any idiot can see that you make up random numbers just like you make up random claims about the pak-fa and F-35. The F-35 uses very expensive materials, and has it ever occurred to you that the F-22 has 2 engines instead of one? Has thrust vectoring while the F-35 does not? Is larger thus uses more material? Has a radar that uses more TR modules?

Only a narrow minded individual would equate cost to cheap material without taking the above factors into account.





Martian2 said:


> Feel free to read the primary sources in the footnotes of the following citation.



Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[210] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[211] The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of *compromises in design*. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.[211] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[212] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[213][214]"[/QUOTE]



And were does it say anything about materials in that quote? The only thing mentioned was the F-35&#8217;s shaping.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Martian2

ptldM3 said:


> So what does the price disparity between the F-35 and F22 have to do with materials? Or their effect on stealth? And The F-35 is 197-237 million depending on model, and the F-22 is 150 million, those are official number, so who is the retard
> 
> It&#8217;s common knowledge that you make crap up. Try something official like this:
> 
> http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf
> 
> http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf
> 
> Any idiot can see that you make up random numbers just like you make up random claims about the pak-fa and F-35. The F-35 uses very expensive materials, and has it ever occurred to you that the F-22 has 2 engines instead of one? Has thrust vectoring while the F-35 does not? Is larger thus uses more material? Has a radar that uses more TR modules?
> 
> Only a narrow minded individual would equate cost to cheap material without taking the above factors into account.
> 
> Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[210] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[211] The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of *compromises in design*. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.[211] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[212] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[213][214]"



*Tired of your stupidity (see the Global Security RCS citations for F-22 and F-35)*

Are you blind? Did you not see the Popular Science citation?

Are you claiming the F-35 has equal or superior materials than the F-22? If so, why does the F-35 (0.005 m2) have a higher RCS than the F-22 (0.0001 m2)? (See Radar Cross Section (RCS))

You're an idiot and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you're too dumb to understand, that's your problem.

How hard is it to understand that a high-performance Ferrari/F-22 has a superior design and is made of superior materials than a Russian Lada/F-35? You don't need a Ph.D. to figure that out.

----------

This is very simple.

It is a fact that the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in performance and stealth. Everybody knows this. The reasons are due to the F-22's superior design and materials. That's where the superior performance originates.

You argue the F-35 has equal or superior materials to the F-22. Why would Lockheed Martin design an inferior plane with equal or superior materials? That's completely idiotic.

The reason the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in performance and stealth is due to the attempt to manufacture a low-cost stealth fighter. The low-cost imperative led to an inferior design, because of the limitations of the inferior materials. Duh!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> *Tired of your stupidity (see the Global Security RCS citations for F-22 and F-35)*
> 
> Are you blind? Did you not see the Popular Science citation?
> 
> *Are you claiming the F-35 has equal or superior materials than the F-22?* If so, why does the F-35 (0.005 m2) have a higher RCS than the F-22 (0.0001 m2)? (See






*Yes* I am, the F-35 has equal or superior material to the F-22. The F-22 has a superior RCS because of it&#8217;s design and not its material. Materials as in composite skin is made for weight and strength. RCS is firstly and mostly dependant on shaping, than &#8216;RAM&#8217; coating than material.









Martian2 said:


> Radar Cross Section (RCS))
> 
> You're an idiot and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you're too dumb to understand, that's your problem.





Watch your mouth, kid. If anyone is an idiot it is you. Just because you are frustrated that you can not answer my questions does not mean you need to act like a douche. Moving on, *Where is the proof *that the F-35 uses cheap materials? You have none. RCS differences between the F-22 and F-35 does not mean that the F-35 uses cheap material.


Here is proof you are a liar and a fraud:



Lockheed Martin reveals F-35 to feature nanocomposite structures





> Lockheed Martin has revealed *the F-35 Lightning II will be the first mass-produced aircraft to integrate structural nanocomposites* in non-load bearing airframe components.
> 
> 
> The shift to CNRP as an airframe material has been anticipated ever since carbon nanotubes were discovered in 1991. *It is widely considered one of the strongest materials ever invented* - several times stronger than carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP), yet *lighter by about 25-30%.*
> 
> 
> *Lockheed, however, has invented a process that dramatically reduces the cost to build carbon nanotube composites *for aircraft structures, Earles said. The new wingtip fairing is being* made for one-tenth of the cost *of the equivalent CFRP component, he said.




More advanced? Check. Stronger? Check. Lighter? Check. Cheaper to manufacture? Check.


So now the truth comes out, the F-22 has nothing similar to the nanocomposites found in the F-35. Even more damning is that Lockheed has managed to reduce the cost of this nanocomposite by 1/10 compared to traditional material. So what were you saying? Still want to stick to the same story? 







Martian2 said:


> How hard is it to understand that a high-performance Ferrari/F-22 has a superior design and is made of
> 
> You argue the F-35 has equal or superior materials to the F-22. Why would Lockheed Martin design an inferior plane with equal or superior materials? That's completely idiotic.
> 
> The reason the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in performance and stealth is due to the attempt to manufacture a low-cost stealth fighter. The low-cost imperative led to an inferior design, because of the limitations of the inferior materials. Duh!




After reading my source, do you not feel a bit silly and ashamed especially after your over opinionated display of ignorance and utter lack of knowledge when it comes to the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> I have been making the same claim with my analyses during the past year.


It was technically worthless then and it is technically worthless now.



Martian2 said:


> 1. JSF does not have supercruise capability.


When the J-20 get it, then we can talk further.



Martian2 said:


> 2. JSF is not an all-aspect stealth fighter. It has less-stealthy LOAN (low observable asymmetric nozzle) nozzles. The flat nozzles on the F-22 are the best design for radar and infrared stealth.
> 
> The J-20 is likely to install flat nozzles when the powerful WS-15 engine is ready, because it is the only feature where it is clearly inferior to the F-22.


When the J-20 get it, then we can talk further.



Martian2 said:


> 3. JSF has bumps along its entire bottom. There is also a large protrusion above the left airduct for the cannon on the F-35A, which makes it less stealthy.


Less 'stealthy'? How about it is 'stealthy' enough? This comment shows you do not have the full grasp of radar detection, low radar observability, and the tactical logic in incorporating the two into a design.



Martian2 said:


> 4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.


Where are these 'cheap materials' located on the aircraft and how do they compromise 'stealth'?



Martian2 said:


> 5. The combat radius is only half of the J-20.


Its combat radius is far less than the B-52 as well.



Martian2 said:


> 6. JSF lacks internal side weapon bays.


How does this make the F-35 inferior? Explain in technical and tactical details on how does mounting weapons on the sides is superior to anywhere else.



Martian2 said:


> 7. The JSF is significantly smaller in physical size and can only carry a much smaller radar with less T/R (transmit/receive) modules. Since it has only one engine, the available power to the radar is also significantly less.


If it has a smaller radar, then one engine is enough, ya think? But here is where your argument fails: Just because one array may have a larger T/R count, that does not automatically equate to overall superiority. For now, the US still leads in terms of T/R quality and software design. In AESA system, maximum power is rarely used, in fact, available power is used as reserve power for sub-array partitioning and choreography, not to blast the sky with all that energy.



Martian2 said:


> The JSF radar is clearly inferior to the F-22 and a J-20 equipped with AESA radar.


Utter BS.



Martian2 said:


> 8. The J-20 will be able to look down and shoot missiles (with better kinematics or more kinetic energy) at the lower flying F-35. The service ceiling of the J-20 is 65,617 ft. It is only 60,000 ft. for the F-35.


Your non experience in aviation is showing. The 747's maximum altitude is over 40k ft. But how many 747 are at that altitude daily? Also, whenever a radar sales blurb says 'look down', it does not -- *EVER* -- mean straight down but that the beam is capable of looking at an descending angle. If the F-35 is low enough, it will get lost among ground clutter.



Martian2 said:


> In conclusion, the JSF is no match for the J-20. The battle plan is for the F-22 to engage the J-20. However, there are only 187 F-22s. The military balance may shift if China produces 300 or more J-20s in the future (circa 2018).


In conclusion, your 'analysis' is no analysis but a technically ignorant fanboy's fantasy. Sending the J-20 with its floppity-flippity canards against the F-35 will be unwise.



Martian2 said:


> *Tired of your stupidity (see the Global Security RCS citations for F-22 and F-35)*
> 
> Are you blind? Did you not see the Popular Science citation?
> 
> Are you claiming the F-35 has equal or superior materials than the F-22? If so, why does the F-35 (0.005 m2) have a higher RCS than the F-22 (0.0001 m2)? (See Radar Cross Section (RCS))
> 
> You're an idiot and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you're too dumb to understand, that's your problem.
> 
> How hard is it to understand that a high-performance Ferrari/F-22 has a superior design and is made of superior materials than a Russian Lada/F-35? You don't need a Ph.D. to figure that out.
> 
> ----------
> 
> This is very simple.
> 
> It is a fact that the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in performance and stealth. Everybody knows this. The reasons are due to the F-22's superior design and materials. That's where the superior performance originates.
> 
> You argue the F-35 has equal or superior materials to the F-22. Why would Lockheed Martin design an inferior plane with equal or superior materials? That's completely idiotic.
> 
> The reason the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in performance and stealth is due to the attempt to manufacture a low-cost stealth fighter. The low-cost imperative led to an inferior design, because of the limitations of the inferior materials. Duh!


What is idiotic and comical is how you consistently failed to see how you contradict yourself. On the one hand, you correctly asserted that 'stealth' is achieved mainly by shaping and less by materials, but when convenient, it is the opposite.

The F-35's alleged RCS is higher than the F-22's alleged RCS is because of different mission requirements, not because of inferior materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
20


----------



## regular

giant panda said:


> The J-20, China's fifth-generation stealth fighter, is able to penetrate US air defense systems, according to a report from Russia's Military Analysis.
> 
> *The report said that the stealth technology used by the J-20 is very similar to that used by the American F-22A. Its stealth capability is far better than the F-35 and even the Russian-built PAK FA fighter, *


Looks like USA got skrewedup big time in technology........


----------



## gambit

regular said:


> Looks like USA got skrewedup big time in technology........


I do not think your sucking up is obvious enough. You need to ratchet it up a few more levels.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Luffy 500

A pehnomenal level of technological advancement has been achieved by the chinese over the last 2 decades burning the a$$es of their critics and haters. Good going china. The russians will ultimately have to acknowledge chinese superiority and so will the americans while some hater wanna be hyper power will burn in jealousy.


----------



## INDIC

Luffy 500 said:


> A pehnomenal level of technological advancement has been achieved by the chinese over the last 2 decades burning the a$$es of their critics and haters. Good going china. *The russians will ultimately have to acknowledge chinese superiority* and so will the americans while some hater wanna be hyper power will burn in jealousy.



The Chinese who reverse engineer or rip-off Russian technology will have superior technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Luffy 500

Gigawatt said:


> The Chinese who reverse engineer or rip-off Russian technology will have superior technology.



You know more than the russians? And why don't you guys do reverse engineering yourselfs?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GR!FF!N

Carlo Kopp again..   it tells rest of the story... 

@Martian2

a discussion between F-35,J-20 and T-50 was discussed to death between you,Gambit and few others and you lost that argument.no need to display those copy paste pics over again and again and again...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## anon45

regular said:


> Looks like USA got skrewedup big time in technology........



The Writer is Carlo Kopp, your fanboyism is invalid.


----------



## amalakas

gambit said:


> It was technically worthless then and it is technically worthless now.
> 
> .............
> 
> *If it has a smaller radar, then one engine is enough, ya think? But here is where your argument fails: Just because one array may have a larger T/R count, that does not automatically equate to overall superiority. For now, the US still leads in terms of T/R quality and software design. In AESA system, maximum power is rarely used, in fact, available power is used as reserve power for sub-array partitioning and choreography, not to blast the sky with all that energy.*




Well know you are speaking "chinese" to him. I bet he doesn't even begin to understand what you just said.


----------



## tvsram1992

Russians and Americans certainly know how to make China go into a deluded world .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ultima Thule

every plane has weakness and as well as advantages and remember Russian and us military aviation industry are lot mature than Chinese military aviation industry and as for martian your post is childish but i agree with martian Pak FA to underside and rear and as for ptldM3 Russian aviation scientist is saying that they build PAK FA inferior to F-22, i hope that PAK FA will improve as the development proceed, the biggest flaws in J-20 is canard,ventral fin, and engine nozzle


----------



## pla

J20
A lot of design is temporary, because the engine


----------



## ChineseLuver

why bother with the yindees "no.1 weapons importer" anything western they will lick and def.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HeinzG

Martian2 said:


> I have been making the same claim with my analyses during the past year.
> 
> ----------
> 
> From my July 9, 2012 post:
> 
> *JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) is inferior to J-20 Mighty Dragon*
> 
> 1. JSF does not have supercruise capability.
> 
> 2. JSF is not an all-aspect stealth fighter. It has less-stealthy LOAN (low observable asymmetric nozzle) nozzles. The flat nozzles on the F-22 are the best design for radar and infrared stealth.
> 
> The J-20 is likely to install flat nozzles when the powerful WS-15 engine is ready, because it is the only feature where it is clearly inferior to the F-22.
> 
> 3. JSF has bumps along its entire bottom. There is also a large protrusion above the left airduct for the cannon on the F-35A, which makes it less stealthy.
> 
> 4. JSF uses cheaper materials, which compromise stealth.
> 
> 5. The combat radius is only half of the J-20.
> 
> 6. JSF lacks internal side weapon bays.
> 
> 7. The JSF is significantly smaller in physical size and can only carry a much smaller radar with less T/R (transmit/receive) modules. Since it has only one engine, the available power to the radar is also significantly less.
> 
> The JSF radar is clearly inferior to the F-22 and a J-20 equipped with AESA radar.
> 
> 8. The J-20 will be able to look down and shoot missiles (with better kinematics or more kinetic energy) at the lower flying F-35. The service ceiling of the J-20 is 65,617 ft. It is only 60,000 ft. for the F-35.
> 
> In conclusion, the JSF is no match for the J-20. The battle plan is for the F-22 to engage the J-20. However, there are only 187 F-22s. The military balance may shift if China produces 300 or more J-20s in the future (circa 2018).
> 
> Sensor fusion doesn't mean much when the J-20 has a larger radar and greater detection range than the F-35. Furthermore, the J-20 has a cleaner design and is stealthier than the F-35. Sending a F-35 against the J-20 is unwise.
> 
> -----
> 
> *
> Latest J-20 "2002" Mighty Dragon photographs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the gold transparent RAM on the J-20 cockpit canopy. Only China and the U.S. have this advanced material science technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prominent DSI (diverterless supersonic inlet) strake was probably extensively modeled with Chinese supercomputers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the WS-15 engine is ready in a few years, China can replace the J-20 LOAN nozzles with flat nozzles. The J-20 will be good to go against the F-22.
> 
> [Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]
> 
> ----------
> 
> From my March 14, 2012 post:
> 
> *Su-30 is not stealthy. Therefore T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.*
> 
> Everyone agrees the Su-30 is not stealthy. In the following picture, I have identified 10 important non-stealth features of the Su-30. Interestingly, the T-50/Pak-Fa has the exact same 10 non-stealth features.
> 
> It seems to me there are only two logical choices. Either you agree with me that the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy. Or you can make the incredible claim that both the T-50 and Su-30 are stealthy. I leave the choice to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Su-30 is not stealthy. Here are 10 non-stealth features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In an interesting coincidence, the T-50/Pak-Fa shares all ten Su-30 non-stealth features.


 

Don't forget what we have seen in 2010 is the prototype of the PAK-FA. The battle ready bird will be much more different than what we see. Specially the engine, they were going to be replaced even when the jet was first flown.



ptldM3 said:


> Some random Russian webpage that copies Copp's verbal spewage is the proof. This is the same guy that claimed that the SU-35 is beter than the F-35, so if the pak-fa is a quanum leap over the SU-35, than where does that put the J-20? According to him the maneuverability and 'kenetics' from the SU-35 can defeate the F-35.


 
I'm a reader of Kopp's articles. Can you give me some other articles which I can look into?


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> In conclusion, your 'analysis' is no analysis but a technically ignorant fanboy's fantasy. Sending the J-20 with its floppity-flippity canards against the F-35 will be unwise.



Floppity-flippity LEVCONs.






Floppity-flippity horizontal stabilizers.


----------



## ephone

How do the russians know that???



giant panda said:


> The J-20, China's fifth-generation stealth fighter, is able to penetrate US air defense systems, according to a report from Russia's Military Analysis.
> 
> *The report said that the stealth technology used by the J-20 is very similar to that used by the American F-22A. Its stealth capability is far better than the F-35 and even the Russian-built PAK FA fighter, *it said. Considered a fighter-bomber similar to the US F-111 of the Cold War ear, the J-20's range would enable it to reach the Pacific second island chain of the Philippines and Guam. With mid-air refueling it could be extended further.
> 
> The J-20 already boasts better aerodynamic performance than the F-35, F-18A and F-18E/F currently used by the various branches of the US armed forces. The report said that between 400 and 500 J-20 aircraft will be produced to replace the Su-27SK and Su-33MKK currently deployed by the PLA Air Force.
> 
> *russian link*: ÐÑÐµÐ´Ð²Ð°ÑÐ¸ÑÐµÐ»ÑÐ½Ð°Ñ Ð¾ÑÐµÐ½ÐºÐ° Ð¿ÑÐ¾ÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸Ð¿Ð° Ð¼Ð°Ð»Ð¾Ð·Ð°Ð¼ÐµÑÐ½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ ÐºÐ¸ÑÐ°Ð¹ÑÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð¾ Ð¸ÑÑÑÐµÐ±Ð¸ÑÐµÐ»Ñ Chengdu J-XX [J-20] » ÐÐ¾ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾Ðµ Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð·ÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ
> 
> &#1058;&#1077;&#1093;&#1085;&#1080;&#1095;&#1077;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1077; &#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1095;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1086; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1080;&#1087;&#1072;
> J-XX/J-20 &#1103;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1090;&#1103;&#1078;&#1077;&#1083;&#1099;&#1084; &#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1073;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1084;, &#1089;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1085;&#1080;&#1084;&#1099;&#1084; &#1087;&#1086; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072;&#1084; &#1089; F-111. &#1055;&#1077;&#1088;&#1074;&#1099;&#1081; &#1086;&#1073;&#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1077;&#1094; &#1086;&#1073;&#1083;&#1072;&#1076;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1080;&#1084; &#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1091;&#1075;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1086;&#1084; &#1087;&#1086; &#1089;&#1093;&#1077;&#1084;&#1077; "&#1091;&#1090;&#1082;&#1072;" &#1089; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1078;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084; &#1091;&#1075;&#1083;&#1086;&#1084; &#1087;&#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1042;&#1069;, &#1089; &#1087;&#1072;&#1088;&#1086;&#1081; &#1085;&#1072;&#1082;&#1083;&#1086;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1078;&#1091;/&#1085;&#1072;&#1079;&#1072;&#1076; &#1087;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1090;&#1080;&#1082;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086;/&#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1080;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1093;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1087;&#1072;&#1088;&#1086;&#1081; &#1087;&#1086;&#1093;&#1086;&#1078;&#1080;&#1093; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1080;&#1093; &#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1080;&#1093; &#1087;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1079;&#1072;&#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;, &#1082;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1099;&#1077; &#1077;&#1089;&#1083;&#1080; &#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072; &#1089;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1081;&#1085;&#1086;&#1084; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1077; &#1090;&#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103;&#1076;&#1091; &#1089; &#1093;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1084; &#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;&#1084; &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1072;&#1090; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1091; &#1074;&#1077;&#1089;&#1100;&#1084;&#1072; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1099;&#1077; &#1074;&#1086;&#1079;&#1084;&#1086;&#1078;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1074; &#1086;&#1073;&#1083;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1091;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1080; &#1084;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1074;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;. &#1053;&#1077;&#1089;&#1086;&#1084;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086; &#1090;&#1072;&#1082;&#1072;&#1103; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1092;&#1080;&#1075;&#1091;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1072;&#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1072; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1093;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1096;&#1077;&#1081; &#1091;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1081;&#1095;&#1080;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1085;&#1072; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1084; &#1088;&#1077;&#1078;&#1080;&#1084;&#1077; &#1089; &#1087;&#1086;&#1076;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1103;&#1097;&#1080;&#1084; &#1090;&#1080;&#1087;&#1086;&#1084; &#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;, &#1072; &#1090;&#1072;&#1082;&#1078;&#1077; &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090; &#1093;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1096;&#1080;&#1077; &#1084;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1074;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1093;&#1072;&#1088;&#1072;&#1082;&#1090;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1082;&#1080; &#1085;&#1072; &#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1085;&#1089;-&#1080; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1093; &#1088;&#1077;&#1078;&#1080;&#1084;&#1072;&#1093;.
> 
> &#1041;&#1077;&#1079; &#1089;&#1086;&#1084;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086; &#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1096;&#1077;, &#1095;&#1077;&#1084; &#1085;&#1072; &#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1084; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1080;&#1087;&#1077; &#1058;-50 &#1055;&#1040;&#1050; &#1060;&#1040; &#1080; &#1090;&#1077;&#1084; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1077; &#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1096;&#1077; &#1095;&#1077;&#1084; &#1085;&#1072; &#1079;&#1072;&#1087;&#1091;&#1089;&#1082;&#1072;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1084; &#1074; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1080;&#1079;&#1074;&#1086;&#1076;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086; F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
> 
> &#1050;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; J-XX/J-20 &#1087;&#1086;-&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1080;&#1084;&#1086;&#1084;&#1091; &#1074; &#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1087;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080; &#1073;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072; &#1086;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1072; &#1085;&#1072; &#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1080;&#1083;&#1072;&#1093; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1080;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; F-22A Raptor:
> 
> &#1053;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1089;&#1077;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1082;&#1080;&#1090;&#1072;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; J-XX/J-20 &#1080; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072; &#1092;&#1086;&#1085;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103; &#1073;&#1083;&#1080;&#1079;&#1082;&#1080; &#1087;&#1086; &#1074;&#1085;&#1077;&#1096;&#1085;&#1077;&#1084;&#1091; &#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1091; &#1082; F-22, &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1089;&#1093;&#1086;&#1078;&#1091;&#1102; &#1089;&#1080;&#1075;&#1085;&#1072;&#1090;&#1091;&#1088;&#1091; &#1091;&#1078;&#1077; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080;.
> 
> &#1058;&#1088;&#1072;&#1087;&#1077;&#1094;&#1080;&#1077;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1080; &#1074;&#1086;&#1079;&#1076;&#1091;&#1093;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1088;&#1085;&#1080;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074; &#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1081; J-XX/J-20 &#1087;&#1086;&#1093;&#1086;&#1078;&#1080; &#1085;&#1072; F-22, &#1093;&#1086;&#1090;&#1103; &#1080; &#1082;&#1072;&#1078;&#1091;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1080;&#1084;&#1080; &#1080; &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1086;&#1084;&#1080;&#1085;&#1072;&#1102;&#1097;&#1080;&#1084;&#1080; &#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1083;&#1100; DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) F-35, &#1086;&#1095;&#1077;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1085;&#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#8203;&#8203;&#1085;&#1072; &#1091;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1100;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1086;&#1082; &#1074;&#1086;&#1079;&#1076;&#1091;&#1093;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1088;&#1085;&#1080;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074; &#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1083;&#1103; F-22.
> 
> *&#1048;&#1084;&#1077;&#1102;&#1097;&#1072;&#1103; &#1088;&#1077;&#1096;&#1072;&#1102;&#1097;&#1077;&#1077; &#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072; &#1082;&#1088;&#1077;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1100;&#1077;&#1074; &#1082; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1091; J-XX/J-20 &#1086;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1100; &#1087;&#1086;&#1093;&#1086;&#1078;&#1072; &#1085;&#1072; F-22 &#1080; &#1103;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1080;&#1090; &#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1080;&#1087; &#1058;-50 &#1055;&#1040;&#1050; &#1060;&#1040; &#1080; &#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1082;&#1072;&#1085;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1073;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100; F -35 Joint Strike.(english The report said that the stealth technology used by the J-20 is very similar to that used by the American F-22A.Its stealth capability is far better than the F-35 and even the Russian-built PAK FA fighter,)*
> 
> &#1055;&#1083;&#1086;&#1089;&#1082;&#1072;&#1103; &#1085;&#1080;&#1078;&#1085;&#1103;&#1103; &#1095;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1072; J-XX/J-20 &#1103;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1086;&#1087;&#1090;&#1080;&#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1074;&#1089;&#1077;&#1093; &#1072;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074; &#1096;&#1080;&#1088;&#1086;&#1082;&#1086;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1080; &#1090;&#1077;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086; &#1080;&#1084;&#1080;&#1090;&#1080;&#1088;&#1091;&#1077;&#1090; &#1076;&#1080;&#1079;&#1072;&#1081;&#1085; F-22.
> 
> &#1060;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072; &#1074; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077; J-XX/J-20 &#1087;&#1086;&#1082;&#1072;&#1079;&#1099;&#1074;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090; &#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086;&#1077; &#1091;&#1075;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1077; &#1074;&#1099;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1085;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1084;&#1077;&#1078;&#1076;&#1091; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1080;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1087;&#1077;p&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;p&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072; &#1080; &#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086;&#1077; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1077; &#1091;&#1075;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1077; &#1074;&#1099;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1085;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1082;&#1088;&#1072;&#1103; &#1084;&#1077;&#1078;&#1076;&#1091; &#1079;&#1072;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1080;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1079;&#1072;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;p&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072;. &#1057;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1080; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1072; &#1089;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1090; ~ 43°, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086; &#1103;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1072;&#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1086; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1101;&#1092;&#1092;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1080;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072;.
> 
> &#1055;&#1088;&#1080; &#1089;&#1086;&#1079;&#1076;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080; &#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1093; &#1080; &#1086;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1082; &#1096;&#1072;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080; J-XX/J-20 &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1079;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1083;&#1072;&#1089;&#1100; &#1086;&#1087;&#1090;&#1080;&#1084;&#1080;&#1079;&#1080;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1085;&#1072;&#1103; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1061;-&#1076;&#1080;&#1072;&#1087;&#1072;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085;&#1072; &#1079;&#1091;&#1073;&#1095;&#1072;&#1090;&#1072;&#1103; &#1090;&#1077;&#1093;&#1085;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1075;&#1080;&#1103; &#1082;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1082;&#1080;, &#1086;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1085;&#1072;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080; F-117A &#1080; F-22.
> 
> &#1050;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1095;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1072;, &#1093;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1077; &#1073;&#1072;&#1083;&#1082;&#1080;, &#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1073;&#1080;&#1083;&#1080;&#1079;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1099;/ &#1088;&#1077;&#1073;&#1088;&#1072;, &#1072;&#1089;&#1080;&#1084;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1088;&#1080;&#1095;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1089;&#1086;&#1087;&#1083;&#1072;, &#1085;&#1077; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1084;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1084;&#1099;&#1093; &#1089; &#1101;&#1092;&#1092;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1080;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1084;&#1072;&#1083;&#1086;&#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100;&#1102;, &#1085;&#1086; &#1084;&#1086;&#1075;&#1091;&#1090; &#1089;&#1083;&#1091;&#1078;&#1080;&#1090;&#1100; &#1083;&#1080;&#1096;&#1100; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1077;&#1078;&#1091;&#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084; &#1088;&#1077;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;&#1084; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1091;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1099;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1081; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1080;&#1087;&#1072;.
> 
> &#1050;&#1086;&#1085;&#1092;&#1080;&#1075;&#1091;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072; &#1080; &#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1099; &#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1084;&#1099; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1072; &#1089;&#1086;&#1086;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1091;&#1077;&#1090; &#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1083;&#1102; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1091;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080; &#1089;&#1086;&#1087;&#1083;&#1072; &#1089; &#1080;&#1079;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1103;&#1077;&#1084;&#1099;&#1084; &#1074;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084; &#1090;&#1103;&#1075;&#1080; F-22A &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1103;&#1084;&#1086;&#1091;&#1075;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1089;&#1086;&#1087;&#1083;&#1072; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1085;&#1072;&#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1088;&#1086;&#1083;&#1080;&#1088;&#1091;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1081; &#1084;&#1086;&#1076;&#1077;&#1083;&#1080; &#1080;&#1085;&#1092;&#1088;&#1072;&#1082;&#1088;&#1072;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1080;&#1079;&#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1088;&#1072;&#1076;&#1080;&#1086;&#1095;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1089;&#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;.
> 
> &#1050;&#1086;&#1085;&#1092;&#1080;&#1075;&#1091;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1084;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1084;&#1072; &#1089; &#1087;&#1086;&#1076;&#1092;&#1080;&#1079;&#1102;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084;, &#1087;&#1086;&#1076;&#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1084; &#1080; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1084;&#1077;&#1097;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;&#1084; &#1086;&#1088;&#1091;&#1078;&#1080;&#1103; &#1074;&#1086; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1080;&#1093; &#1086;&#1090;&#1089;&#1077;&#1082;&#1072;&#1093; &#1080; &#1103;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1076;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1086;&#1081;, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086;&#1073;&#1099; &#1089;&#1086;&#1086;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100; &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1074; &#1090;&#1086;&#1081; &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1080;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1087;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1080;&#1090;&#1100; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1102;&#1102; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1079;&#1085;&#1091;&#1102; &#1085;&#1072;&#1075;&#1088;&#1091;&#1079;&#1082;&#1091; F-22A Raptor.
> 
> &#1054;&#1073;&#1098;&#1077;&#1084; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1084;&#1077;&#1097;&#1072;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1080; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072; &#1090;&#1086;&#1087;&#1083;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072; &#1090;&#1072;&#1082;&#1078;&#1077; &#1084;&#1086;&#1078;&#1077;&#1090; &#1086;&#1082;&#1072;&#1079;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100;&#1089;&#1103; &#1074;&#1099;&#1089;&#1086;&#1082;&#1080;&#1084; &#1091;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090;&#1099;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1092;&#1080;&#1075;&#1091;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1102; &#1092;&#1102;&#1079;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;&#1078;&#1072; &#1080; &#1073;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1096;&#1080;&#1077; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1086;&#1073;&#1098;&#1077;&#1084;&#1099; &#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1091;&#1075;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1083;&#1077;&#1074;. &#1069;&#1090;&#1086; &#1089;&#1074;&#1080;&#1076;&#1077;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1091;&#1077;&#1090; &#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080; &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090;&#1100; &#1074;&#1086;&#1079;&#1084;&#1086;&#1078;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1091;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1081;&#1095;&#1080;&#1074;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1082;&#1088;&#1077;&#1081;&#1089;&#1077;&#1088;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072;.
> 
> &#1050;&#1080;&#1090;&#1072;&#1081;&#1094;&#1099; &#1085;&#1077; &#1088;&#1072;&#1089;&#1082;&#1088;&#1099;&#1074;&#1072;&#1102;&#1090; &#1090;&#1080;&#1087; &#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1103;. &#1057;&#1091;&#1097;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1091;&#1077;&#1090; &#1084;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;, &#1095;&#1090;&#1086; &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1079;&#1091;&#1102;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1077; &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1079;&#1074;&#1091;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1077; &#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1080; &#1089;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1080; 117&#1057;, &#1093;&#1086;&#1090;&#1103; &#1089; &#1091;&#1095;&#1077;&#1090;&#1086;&#1084; &#1086;&#1073;&#1097;&#1077;&#1081; &#1101;&#1092;&#1092;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1080;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1072;&#1101;&#1088;&#1086;&#1076;&#1080;&#1085;&#1072;&#1084;&#1080;&#1082;&#1080; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072;, &#1080;&#1093;, &#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1077;&#1077; &#1074;&#1089;&#1077;&#1075;&#1086;, &#1073;&#1091;&#1076;&#1077;&#1090; &#1085;&#1077;&#1076;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086; &#1095;&#1090;&#1086;&#1073;&#1099; &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1079;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100; &#1074;&#1077;&#1089;&#1100; &#1087;&#1086;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;&#1094;&#1080;&#1072;&#1083; &#1101;&#1090;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072;.
> 
> &#1053;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1088; &#1074;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1080;&#1093; &#1076;&#1072;&#1090;&#1095;&#1080;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074; &#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1085;&#1077;&#1080;&#1079;&#1074;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1085;. &#1050;&#1080;&#1090;&#1072;&#1081; &#1076;&#1086; &#1089;&#1080;&#1093; &#1087;&#1086;&#1088; &#1085;&#1077; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1076;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1080;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1083; &#1088;&#1072;&#1076;&#1072;&#1088; &#1040;&#1060;&#1040;&#1056; &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1076;&#1074;&#1080;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;&#1091;&#1102; &#1089;&#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1084;&#1091; &#1086;&#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1084;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1078;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080;&#1079;&#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1072;&#1102;&#1097;&#1080;&#1093; &#1056;&#1069;&#1057;. &#1058;&#1077;&#1084; &#1085;&#1077; &#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1077;&#1077;, &#1086;&#1085;&#1080; &#1084;&#1086;&#1075;&#1091;&#1090; &#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100; &#1076;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1091;&#1087;&#1085;&#1099; &#1082; &#1084;&#1086;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1090;&#1091; &#1087;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1091;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1087;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072; &#1085;&#1072; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1080;&#1079;&#1074;&#1086;&#1076;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086;. &#1057;&#1086;&#1086;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1091;&#1102;&#1097;&#1077;&#1077; &#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1077; &#1086;&#1073;&#1086;&#1088;&#1091;&#1076;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1074; &#1085;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1103;&#1097;&#1077;&#1077; &#1074;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1080;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072; &#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1076;&#1080;&#1080; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1088;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1082;&#1080; &#1080;/ &#1080;&#1083;&#1080; &#1080;&#1089;&#1087;&#1099;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1081;.


----------



## GR!FF!N

ephone said:


> How do the russians know that???



i guess due to this...

Did China steal stealth technology from US and Russia for Chengdu J-20? | Defence Aviation

but they didn't mentioned about Mig....


----------



## gambit

HeinzG said:


> I'm a reader of Kopp's articles. Can you give me some other articles which I can look into?


There lies the problem. Kopp and the APA crowd have gone where no aviation enthusiast with common sense have gone when it comes to the low radar observability, aka 'stealth', issue.

First...Kopp does not have any aviation experience. He has impressive enough technical education and experience in other areas -- yes -- but no aviation experience.

That said...What Kopp and APA should have done is to stick with basic system theories analyses, supported by basic principles and theories analyses, to give the lay readers a reasonably sound understanding of the hardware in question. He and APA does that well enough most of the time. But when it comes to this 'stealth' issue, Kopp and APA revealed their willingness to compromise their claimed neutrality for their own biases -- the F-22. He does not want the F-35 as part of Australia's defense forces.

What APA did with the J-20 was technically unthinkable by any reasonable engineering standards. APA basically jumped the technical gun, so to speak. It is fine to speculate and it is fun to do so, but that technical hack piece by APA in using just one tool -- *ONE* -- to make pronouncements on the J-20 to make it appeared superior to the F-35 went beyond speculations for fun and trespassed into intellectual dishonesty.

The Chinese crowd will latch onto *ANYTHING* seemingly positive on the J-20 no matter how technically dubious from anyone and any sources, even if all they do is echo each other, to crow about China's achievements. China and Chinese have every right to be proud, but when an anonymous Internet Chinese 'Engineer' boldly claimed that the J-20's all moving vertical stabilators are more 'advanced' than the F-22's rudders despite one hundred yrs of aviation history that says nothing of the kind, and no one dared challenge him on it, just like APA, the Chinese supporters have gone beyond speculations for fun and into intellectual dishonesty.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

^^ If the F-35 was so good, why does Kopp hate it then?


----------



## gambit

UKBengali said:


> ^^ If the F-35 was so good, why does Kopp hate it then?


Because he want the F-22 for Australia.

Exercise a little bit of critical thinking, will ya? If APA was willing to perform Physical Optics simulations from pictures for the J-20, then why not the same for the F-35, especially when there are a lot more pictures for the F-35 than for the J-20? Why not do the same for older aircrafts to give the readers a frame of reference.

Here is what a Chinese paper say about Physical Optics simulations...







Basically, when it comes to a complex body, Physical Optics alone is completely inadequate because PO does not and cannot measure other mechanisms of radiation that also contributes to the final RCS value.

This fact is not 'top secret' and because it is well known APA had to admit in their hack piece on the shortcomings of the *SINGLE* tool that they used. The list of 'does not' is longer than 'does'. Why is that list not presented by the Chinese crowd here? What are they afraid of when their own countrymen from the area that built the J-20 (above) said so? And if Chinese engineers published papers that said so, what does that say about that APA 'analyses'?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

^^ So why would he be so desperate to get F-22 if F-35 was a good aircraft?

Kopp really thinks the F-35 would get slaughtered by J-20.

He only is looking out for the security of Australia


----------



## gambit

UKBengali said:


> ^^ So why would he be so desperate to get F-22 if F-35 was a good aircraft?


Good enough. Australia is neither the US nor the USSR where there are dedicated platforms. We recognized this financial burden a long time ago and we are moving away from that mode of thinking.



UKBengali said:


> Kopp really thinks the F-35 would get slaughtered by J-20.


His opinion and so far -- alone.



UKBengali said:


> He only is looking out for the security of Australia


Nothing wrong with that. Just be intellectually honest about the technical issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

UKBengali said:


> ^^ So why would he be so desperate to get F-22 if F-35 was a good aircraft?
> 
> Kopp really thinks the F-35 would get slaughtered by J-20.
> 
> He only is looking out for the security of Australia



 
I don't like the F-35. I think it is too expensive and too restrictive for what it offers, and is not going to fill the shoes of its predecessor (F-16). Others (Gambit for instance) disagree. APA however goes on to call the F-35 useless which clearly isn't. 

perhaps he too feels the price is not justified.


----------



## anarchy 99

F-35 is a piece of crap. I trust Carlo Kopp on this.


----------



## gambit

anarchy 99 said:


> F-35 is a piece of crap. I trust Carlo Kopp on this.


And not the Chinese engineers?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...far-better-than-f-35-pakfa-3.html#post3336421


----------



## amalakas

anarchy 99 said:


> F-35 is a piece of crap. I trust Carlo Kopp on this.




As far as I know, no airplane that ever served, anywhere in the world was a piece of crap. 

Sure there were other planes far superior or better performing, but all planes that ever served where as far removed from crap as you can possibly imagine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HeinzG

gambit said:


> There lies the problem. Kopp and the APA crowd have gone where no aviation enthusiast with common sense have gone when it comes to the low radar observability, aka 'stealth', issue.
> 
> First...Kopp does not have any aviation experience. He has impressive enough technical education and experience in other areas -- yes -- but no aviation experience.
> 
> That said...What Kopp and APA should have done is to stick with basic system theories analyses, supported by basic principles and theories analyses, to give the lay readers a reasonably sound understanding of the hardware in question. He and APA does that well enough most of the time. But when it comes to this 'stealth' issue, Kopp and APA revealed their willingness to compromise their claimed neutrality for their own biases -- the F-22. He does not want the F-35 as part of Australia's defense forces.
> 
> What APA did with the J-20 was technically unthinkable by any reasonable engineering standards. APA basically jumped the technical gun, so to speak. It is fine to speculate and it is fun to do so, but that technical hack piece by APA in using just one tool -- *ONE* -- to make pronouncements on the J-20 to make it appeared superior to the F-35 went beyond speculations for fun and trespassed into intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> The Chinese crowd will latch onto *ANYTHING* seemingly positive on the J-20 no matter how technically dubious from anyone and any sources, even if all they do is echo each other, to crow about China's achievements. China and Chinese have every right to be proud, but when an anonymous Internet Chinese 'Engineer' boldly claimed that the J-20's all moving vertical stabilators are more 'advanced' than the F-22's rudders despite one hundred yrs of aviation history that says nothing of the kind, and no one dared challenge him on it, just like APA, the Chinese supporters have gone beyond speculations for fun and into intellectual dishonesty.



yeah I have noticed Kopp's affection towards J 20 by going all the way to praise and claim J 20 is better than PAK FA. (PS He really hates the F 35!)


----------



## doidoi2

anarchy 99 said:


> F-35 is a piece of crap. I trust Carlo Kopp on this.



By almost all accounts, the JSF has an extremely advanced electronics suite. It's capable of jamming most current Radars in service. I'm all for proclaiming China Strong, but it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the F35's capabilities. Sure the stealth aspect is somewhat compromised due to the size and multirole constraints, but with new advances in Radar technology, Stealth may not be the end-all be-all that we hope for. 

The J-20 is a good plane, but lets not delude ourselves that we have the Americans beaten in fighter aircraft design. Rome wasn't built in a day, and it will take time for China to accumulate the technologies to eventually top the US. It will eventually happen, of course. 

But not just yet. It will take another decade or so. China has already advanced at an amazing rate, and I've no doubt that it will continue to make technological breakthroughs. Let's save the arguments and come back in 5 - 10 years, then we'll see who's on top of the tech race. Be patient.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> There lies the problem. Kopp and the APA crowd have gone where no aviation enthusiast with common sense have gone when it comes to the low radar observability, aka 'stealth', issue.
> 
> First...Kopp does not have any aviation experience. He has impressive enough technical education and experience in other areas -- yes -- but no aviation experience.
> 
> That said...What Kopp and APA should have done is to stick with basic system theories analyses, supported by basic principles and theories analyses, to give the lay readers a reasonably sound understanding of the hardware in question. He and APA does that well enough most of the time. But when it comes to this 'stealth' issue, Kopp and APA revealed their willingness to compromise their claimed neutrality for their own biases -- the F-22. He does not want the F-35 as part of Australia's defense forces.
> 
> What APA did with the J-20 was technically unthinkable by any reasonable engineering standards. APA basically jumped the technical gun, so to speak. It is fine to speculate and it is fun to do so, but that technical hack piece by APA in using just one tool -- *ONE* -- to make pronouncements on the J-20 to make it appeared superior to the F-35 went beyond speculations for fun and trespassed into intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> The Chinese crowd will latch onto *ANYTHING* seemingly positive on the J-20 no matter how technically dubious from anyone and any sources, even if all they do is echo each other, to crow about China's achievements. China and Chinese have every right to be proud, but when an anonymous Internet Chinese 'Engineer' boldly claimed that the J-20's all moving vertical stabilators are more 'advanced' than the F-22's rudders despite one hundred yrs of aviation history that says nothing of the kind, and no one dared challenge him on it, just like APA, the Chinese supporters have gone beyond speculations for fun and into intellectual dishonesty.


 
And who is the Aviation Experts saying that J-20 is inferior to PAKFA, that make you think that Carlo Copp suggestion and the russian media is obviously wrong?


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> And who is the Aviation Experts saying that J-20 is inferior to PAKFA, that make you think that Carlo Copp suggestion and the russian media is obviously wrong?


In RCS control methods, the process goes: Modeling/Predicting and Measurement.

With computer assist, we can swap positions on Modeling and Predicting, but Measurement is still the last. We need a real J-20, or a real F-35, or a real PAK to measure. Does Kopp have any of them?


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> In RCS control methods, the process goes: Modeling/Predicting and Measurement.
> 
> With computer assist, we can swap positions on Modeling and Predicting, but Measurement is still the last. We need a real J-20, or a real F-35, or a real PAK to measure. Does Kopp have any of them?



You misunderstand peoples.

Nobody claim that they have classified information of those planes (J-20, Pakfa, F-22, F-35).
Nobody claim that they can measure which fighter will be more excellent.
Carlo Kop's never claim such things either.

As I said many times, He (Carlo) only SUGGEST which fighter of the two has better shaping in term of stealth; thats it!
He doesnt say any number of the RCS of both plane.

Therefore there is no need of supercomputer to calculate or any Modeling/Predicting and Measurement process for that kind of suggestion.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> You misunderstand peoples.
> 
> Nobody claim that they have classified information of those planes (J-20, Pakfa, F-22, F-35).
> Nobody claim that they can measure which fighter will be more excellent.
> Carlo Kop's never claim such things either.
> 
> As I said many times, He (Carlo) only SUGGEST which fighter of the two has better shaping in term of stealth; thats it!
> He doesnt say any number of the RCS of both plane.
> 
> Therefore there is no need of supercomputer to calculate or any Modeling/Predicting and Measurement process for that kind of suggestion.




No, he says which (and not even that, because he only does it for the J-20) has better PO response in the simulation he conducted. 

Let me ask you, There has been a huge debate all over the internet about the size of the J-20. How does Kopp know? And he needs the size -of everything on that plane- to make an accurate model. 

If he does know, how does he?
and if he doesn't, how can we trust his model?


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> No, he says which (and not even that, because he only does it for the J-20) has better PO response in the simulation he conducted.
> 
> Let me ask you, There has been a huge debate all over the internet about the size of the J-20. How does Kopp know? And he needs the size -of everything on that plane- to make an accurate model.
> 
> If he does know, how does he?
> and if he doesn't, how can we trust his model?


 
OK.

First of all, could you give me the link that saying Kopp claim J-20 has better PO based on his simulation?
And what is the size of J-20 according to him?


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> OK.
> 
> First of all, could you give me the link that saying Kopp claim J-20 has better PO based on his simulation?
> And what is the size of J-20 according to him?



I don't remember him saying what the size of the J-20 is, but he used computer models, he must use a size for that. That is how it works. 

the only link I have right now is this. 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> I don't remember him saying what the size of the J-20 is, but he used computer models, he must use a size for that. That is how it works.
> 
> the only link I have right now is this.
> 
> A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Chengdu J-20 Prototype



You cant say like the above. 

You need to check the source/evidence, otherwise it is only assumption of yours.

In that link Copp said it is preliminary.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> You cant say like the above.
> 
> You need to check the source/evidence, otherwise it is only assumption of yours.
> 
> In that link Copp said it is preliminary.



It is not an assumption. It is a fact. I work with modelling software. I am an engineer. You need dimensions to make a model. It doesn't work otherwise. 

besides the report mentions this as well. 



> The Physical Optics (PO) method is used to predict the RCS of complex targets, in this instance the Chengdu J-20 prototype. *The three dimensional model* for any such target comprises a collection of triangular facets, with shared edges.




also further down the report states. 



> The model used was an extant public domain 3,343 facet representation constructed from publicly available high and medium resolution photographic imagery of the J-20 prototype, observed in December, 2010, and January, 2011.
> 
> ....
> The geometrical fidelity of the model was assessed by comparison with high resolution imagery released in January, 2011, specifically by comparing the shape of the model from the same aspect as the photograph.



there you go, he used photographs to make the model....
preliminary or not, this is the article the funboys in this forum are using. Not me.


----------



## gambit

antonius123 said:


> You misunderstand peoples.
> 
> Nobody claim that they have classified information of those planes (J-20, Pakfa, F-22, F-35).
> Nobody claim that they can measure which fighter will be more excellent.
> Carlo Kop's never claim such things either.
> 
> As I said many times, He (Carlo) only SUGGEST which fighter of the two has better shaping in term of stealth; thats it!
> He doesnt say any number of the RCS of both plane.
> 
> Therefore there is no need of supercomputer to calculate or any Modeling/Predicting and Measurement process for that kind of suggestion.


And it is clear that you do not understand the technical issues involved. But can we say that based upon your arguments that 'suggest', Kopp merely made a *BASELESS* opinion? Why do you place that baseless opinion higher than other more cautionary ones? Because you are a technically ignorant suck up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> And it is clear that you do not understand the technical issues involved.



Why is that?
Dont throw another baseless claim.



> But can we say that based upon your arguments that 'suggest', Kopp merely made a *BASELESS* opinion? Why do you place that baseless opinion higher than other more cautionary ones? Because you are a technically ignorant suck up.


 
You are too ignorant if you say somebody's opinion that F-22 is more stealthy than Phantom or Flanker is baseless. One can suggest by seeing the shape.


----------



## antonius123

amalakas said:


> It is not an assumption. It is a fact. I work with modelling software. I am an engineer. You need dimensions to make a model. It doesn't work otherwise.
> 
> besides the report mentions this as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> also further down the report states.
> 
> 
> 
> there you go, he used photographs to make the model....



But this is only simulation; we are free to use some assesment, as long as we know the model doesnt represent the accuracy.

Thats why he use word "suggest", "indicate", or even "speculate", not "guarantee"

Simulation is only an "approach" to obtain suggestion/indication, because we dont know the real data and we havent had a chance yet to see the real combat. that's it.



> It is wrong to judge
> preliminary or not, this is the article the funboys in this forum are using. Not me.



As long as we understand that it is not accurate or a guaranteed, then that is still OK.

In fact many peoples in forum even like to debate something speculative where the data still much classified.

For example we dont know which fighter is better between EF2K vs SU-33 until they meet in real combat, but peoples is free and has made simulation about which one should be more excellent.

The same case with J-20 vs Pakfa, nobody knows exactly / could guarantee which one is stealthier until one has access/chance to do thorough analysis on both real planes. But since that situation is not present, we know a little, and all we can do is suggest. We can use an approach like simulation to obtain indication/suggestion, which is of course not a guarantee.


----------



## amalakas

antonius123 said:


> But this is only simulation; we are free to use some assesment, as long as we know the model doesnt represent the accuracy.
> 
> Thats why he use word "suggest", "indicate", or even "speculate", not "guarantee"
> 
> Simulation is only an "approach" to obtain suggestion/indication, because we dont know the real data and we havent had a chance yet to see the real combat. that's it.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as we understand that it is not accurate or a guaranteed, then that is still OK.
> 
> In fact many peoples in forum even like to debate something speculative where the data still much classified.
> 
> For example we dont know which fighter is better between EF2K vs SU-33 until they meet in real combat, but peoples is free and has made simulation about which one should be more excellent.
> 
> The same case with J-20 vs Pakfa, nobody knows exactly / could guarantee which one is stealthier until one has access/chance to do thorough analysis on both real planes. But since that situation is not present, we know a little, and all we can do is suggest. We can use an approach like simulation to obtain indication/suggestion, which is of course not a guarantee.




I have no problem with what you just said here. But I think it contradicts some of the things you have written in the past.


----------



## ephone

Whether J-20 is better or worse than other aircrafts, I pretty believe it is all speculation here. People are just debating out of thin air out of imagination.


----------



## shahadat hussain

^ yeah leave the J20 out of discussion


----------



## A1Kaid

gambit said:


> It was technically worthless then and it is technically worthless now.
> 
> 
> When the J-20 get it, then we can talk further.
> 
> 
> When the J-20 get it, then we can talk further.
> 
> 
> Less 'stealthy'? How about it is 'stealthy' enough? This comment shows you do not have the full grasp of radar detection, low radar observability, and the tactical logic in incorporating the two into a design.
> 
> 
> Where are these 'cheap materials' located on the aircraft and how do they compromise 'stealth'?
> 
> 
> Its combat radius is far less than the B-52 as well.
> 
> 
> How does this make the F-35 inferior? Explain in technical and tactical details on how does mounting weapons on the sides is superior to anywhere else.
> 
> 
> If it has a smaller radar, then one engine is enough, ya think? But here is where your argument fails: Just because one array may have a larger T/R count, that does not automatically equate to overall superiority. For now, the US still leads in terms of T/R quality and software design. In AESA system, maximum power is rarely used, in fact, available power is used as reserve power for sub-array partitioning and choreography, not to blast the sky with all that energy.
> 
> 
> Utter BS.
> 
> 
> Your non experience in aviation is showing. The 747's maximum altitude is over 40k ft. But how many 747 are at that altitude daily? Also, whenever a radar sales blurb says 'look down', it does not -- *EVER* -- mean straight down but that the beam is capable of looking at an descending angle. If the F-35 is low enough, it will get lost among ground clutter.
> 
> 
> In conclusion, your 'analysis' is no analysis but a technically ignorant fanboy's fantasy. Sending the J-20 with its floppity-flippity canards against the F-35 will be unwise.
> 
> 
> What is idiotic and comical is how you consistently failed to see how you contradict yourself. On the one hand, you correctly asserted that 'stealth' is achieved mainly by shaping and less by materials, but when convenient, it is the opposite.
> 
> The F-35's alleged RCS is higher than the F-22's alleged RCS is because of different mission requirements, not because of inferior materials.



Great in-depth analysis, do you think in an air war the F-35 II is decisively capable of defeating the J-20 or vice versa in air to air combat?


----------



## A1Kaid

Luffy 500 said:


> A pehnomenal level of technological advancement has been achieved by the * chinese over the last 2 decades burning the a$$es of their critics and haters.* Good going china. The russians will ultimately have to acknowledge chinese superiority and so will the americans while some hater wanna be hyper power will burn in jealousy.





> chinese over the last 2 decades burning the a$$es of their critics and haters.



The Chinese have done a lot of reverse engineering on Russian aviation technology, and Chinese intelligence gathering has given them a rapid boost in their understanding of advance aviation throughout the decades.

You see unlike US the country who was a pioneer in all aviation fields and especially air superiority fighters the US had no country it could reverse engineer from, no country to learn from or make model of, so to be the first in something never done is always a greater challenge than doing the same feat decades after it has been done by others, I'm not saying it doesn't necessarily take as much effort but there are short-cuts that can be taken.



> Until now, *China's chances of perfecting the J-20 technology seemed far in the distance and dependent on how much tech they could copy from Russian designs they already had, or lift from Lockheed databases*.


Source: China Buys Su-35s - Business Insider



> Security experts admit China stole secret fighter jet plans
> 
> From: The Australian
> March 12, 2012 12:00AM
> 
> *CHINESE spies hacked into computers belonging to BAE Systems, Britain's biggest defence company*, to steal details about the design, performance and electronic systems of the West's latest fighter jet, senior security figures have disclosed.



Source: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


Hope you understand how China's technological progress in aviation was expedited. Also after fall of Soviet Union, many Russian scientist and professionals went to China for work and applied their expertise there. Certainly the Chinese aren't alone, US took German scientist out of Germany after WWII and they contributed to the American scientific development.


----------



## BDforever

to Russia and china , keep going guys.... you guys keeping the world balance 

we have eye on both Pak-fa and J20


----------



## A1Kaid

BDforever said:


> to Russia and china , keep going guys.... you guys keeping the world balance
> 
> we have eye on both Pak-fa and J20



U.S. offers Bangladesh $1 billion in aid over next five years | Reuters


----------



## BDforever

A1Kaid said:


> U.S. offers Bangladesh $1 billion in aid over next five years | Reuters


1. good way to enter in this region through bangladesh (us agenda) , we are not dump
2.keep funding us, we will use it against them


----------



## danger007

ptldM3 said:


> Some random Russian webpage that copies Copp's verbal spewage is the proof. This is the same guy that claimed that the SU-35 is beter than the F-35, so if the pak-fa is a quanum leap over the SU-35, than where does that put the J-20? According to him the maneuverability and 'kenetics' from the SU-35 can defeate the F-35.



Many chinese members said Russian sources is garbage .... Any source will become credible if it meet their purpose to be superior otherwise Russian sources will garbage to them...


----------



## danger007

tvsram1992 said:


> Russians and Americans certainly know how to make China go into a deluded world .




You just read my mind.... yela unnavu


----------



## gambit

A1Kaid said:


> ...do you think in an air war the F-35 II is decisively capable of defeating the J-20...


Yes. The US still hold at least one generation advantage in terms of sensor capability, from hardware to data processing, but more like two generations.

For example...

THE GREAT RADAR RACE: AESA DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH GEAR | aviationintel


> The power and focusing ability of the AESA radar has made noncooperative target recognition much easier that the past. Although this is highly guarded technology it is reasonable to assume that an AESA radar can take a synthetic aperture radar &#8220;image&#8221; of its target to compare to a database of 3D vehicle models and thus classify the exact type being targeted along with displaying the % of certainty at the time of interrogation and classification. It can also use the less comprehensive method of counting the blades on the engine face of aircraft that has seem to have been the legacy method over the past couple decades with greater certainty.


The F-15E's APG-71 has this capability to process radar returns that came from 'stealthy' targets and I alluded to this capability in the past. Of course, I expect no one to believe me. 

First...What exactly is a radar 'non-cooperative target' (NCT)?

If you fly below the radar horizon, assuming you can tell where is that horizon, then you are a non-cooperative target. No radar returns? No detection. See F-111 and cruise missiles in terrain following flights.

If you radiate so much raw energy that no radar lock is possible upon you, then despite the fact that everyone know there is an EM shield of sort in the sky but that no one can tell how many of you are behind that shield, then you are a non-cooperative target. See ECM jammers, self or escort.

If you are shaped in such a way that even though you are inside a radar search beam, so little energy is reflected that the seeking radar dismissed you as part of background clutter, then you are a non-cooperative target. See F-117 and later.

In sum, anything you do, from one or combination of all three, that would deny a seeking radar conclusive detection and track of you, then you are a non-cooperative target. Just because you are shaped for 'stealth', that does not mean you should discard the other two tactics when environment and situations made them available.

Second...The US have the world's largest database of known aircrafts, from civilian to military, to exploit the current technology in AESA hardware and data processing capability. All airborne bodies other than the blimp and the flying saucer, have common electrical signatures that no matter their amplitude, above the clutter rejection threshold or below it, can be recognized as being in a cluster and if this cluster is held against a database, detection and tracking can be quicker and more precise. If the cluster is below the clutter rejection threshold, it is more difficult, but not impossible. Not for US, any way. An F-18 and a 747 have these common electrical signatures: two wings and two rear horizontal stabilators. How many more can one find?

Third...This sentence is significant: _It can also use the less comprehensive method of *counting the blades on the engine face* of aircraft that has seem to have been the legacy method over the past couple decades with greater certainty._

This is called RADAM algorithm and I presented this before as well...

Analysis of radar detection of agitated metals (RADAM)


> It has been observed that the radar returns from *moving multielement metal targets often exhibit an unexpected modulation that has both random (or noise-like) and semicoherent components.* One possible mechanism for producing this effect is the modification of the current distribution on the target that results when electrical contacts between target elements are altered intermittently by the forces associated with target motion. Such intermittent-contact modulation must be considered in the design of a radar for detecting or identifying a target exhibiting this effect. Depending on the application, the observer may wish to enhance or suppress the observation of the effect, or it may be important that the effect itself be enhanced or suppressed in the object being observed. To accomplish any of these, the effect must be well understood, and we have therefore undertaken a program of research to study the radar detection of agitated metals (RADAM). This report summarizes our progress during the second year of the program. The overall objectives of our RADAM research program are to (1) identify and isolate the physical processes and mechanisms that contribute to a RADAM signature, (2) identify and explain important recognizable features of the signature, and (3) determine means for separating the significant identifying components of the signature from nonmeaningful components.


These things are complementary:

- Upper/lower
- Right/left
- High/low
- Fore/aft

In pseudo-code, the RADAM algorithm would look something like this:

- Looking at an engine face, for any upper blade there is a lower, for any blade on the right there is one on the left.

- Looking at the helo rotor, for any blade traveling away from you there is one traveling towards you (Doppler).

In other words, the RADAM algorithm is written to seek out signals that have complements to each other. It sounds easy but execution is not because of highly dynamic environmental and hardware related factors. A direct view of the engine face is a rarity so transmitted signals must be of the highest quality, as in clean of self noise, and must be of sophisticated pulse characteristics in order to better distinguish those complementary signals.

This is a basic pulse train...







The Harvard source has this supporting statement: _...separating the significant identifying components of the signature from nonmeaningful components._

The nonmeaningful components would be interference from other radiators nearby, such as reflections off the intake walls, that could contaminate those complementary RADAM signal pairs. Only high frequency, as in the ghz range, with high PRF(requency), or PRI(nterval) as some would use, could help in distinguishing our engine blades.

Another engine view would be from the rear quarter and this view is a bit easier for the RADAM algorithm to work because there is no serpentine exhaust pathways as there could be for the intakes. For the F-117 with its unusual exhaust, the RADAM algorithm is next to useless.

This is a very simplified explanation on how our current AESA systems can work against adversary 'stealth' bodies. Anything beyond publicly available information, which is quite outdated, and it would tread into the 'classified' region and am not going there.

In sum, the J-20 is DOA.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## A1Kaid

Skull and Bones said:


> @A1Kaid
> 
> Seems like you have not been received well in that Chini forum.




Some of them are close minded goons, the forum was becoming ridiculous especially when you had senior members claiming Chinese space capability to be equal if not superior to US space capability! Some people are too blinded by their insecurities, patriotism, and just idiocy and then the idiocy is backed by like-minded goons. I mean these guys were hyping up J20 capabilities even though we don't know much about it, they claimed J20 had equal if not superior avionics as the F-22. Making half-technical reasoning and comparisons, so I had to go against the grain. So of course insecure red hat fanboys who by the way live in US would be angry at someone shedding doubt on their misheld beliefs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A1Kaid

Skull and Bones said:


> Most of them are loony trolls permanently banned from PDF.
> 
> Ironically those few good Chinese members also left that forum, now all is left of that forum is bigoted mental masturbation of few disturbed souls.



True, only reason I stuck around on that forum was because of those few good members and that on that forum they tend to discuss science more which interested me (they do have a steady stream of interesting science news). Other than that considering it's such a lowly populated forum it has a lot of lunacy and radical Chinese superiority myths and highly boasted claims made by Chinese members living in Boston and elsewhere. 

Though we should get back on topic of This Russian media source claiming J-20 is "far better than" F-35, at least here we will get a more balanced view on the subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

> Russian media


That's simply Carlo Kopp article translation into Russian.


----------



## Skull and Bones

A1Kaid said:


> Though we should get back on topic of This Russian media source claiming J-20 is "far better than" F-35, at least here we will get a more balanced view on the subject.



With the advent of L-Band radar, all shaped stealth like F-22, F-35, PAK-FA or J-20 is rendered ineffective, though L-Band doesn't provide high resolution to guide a BVR missile, but hen it can detect a stealth fighter at a distance of more than 200 km, it can have better situational awareness. 

L-Band radar on Su-35, PAK FA will be equipped with L-Band radar in the LERX. 











J-20, F-35 and F-22 will lack it, and the J-20 seems to be lacking in IRST too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zabaniyah

anarchy 99 said:


> F-35 is a piece of crap. I trust Carlo Kopp on this.



The F-35 is a good plane. The only downside is its price-tag. Fifth generation planes certainly aren't going to be affordable by everybody. 



BDforever said:


> to Russia and china , keep going guys.... you guys keeping the world balance
> 
> *we have eye on both Pak-fa and J20*



Stop spreading misinformation  

That kind of equipment aren't like buying rice from your local market.



BDforever said:


> 1. good way to enter in this region through bangladesh (us agenda) ,* we are not dump*
> 2.keep funding us, we will use it against them



May be, may be not. 

But certainly you are being just that by not able to even spell "dumb".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Skull and Bones

High quality Chini RAM paints getting peeled off (look beside the engine nozzle).


----------



## Zabaniyah

Doesn't matter how awesome the J-20 looks. What is clear is that it'll take many years for the Chinese to benchmark to the level of the F-22. And let alone the avionics and materials on the F-35.


----------



## A1Kaid

terranMarine said:


> A1Kaid's double face? Here's a quote from you about the damn Indians lol.
> "I agree with you guys it can be quite unpleasant being on Def.Pk the damn indians have ruined the place they are like parasites crawling all over always trolling and interfering in every Pakistani discussion. Nobody wants them there but they bring traffic so the Admins allow them because they serve a purpose. It's not that enjoyable being on Def.Pk you can hardly talk to other Pakistanis without a fking Indian getting involved."
> 
> Now that you are trashed in cdf you are back here talking crap about Chinese. Go have fun trolling around with your new damn Indian buddies.




It's true we have a lot of Indian trolls on the forum. They do cause problems, but how did they all of a sudden become my friends? lol Learn some sense, unlike your forum any crap you put out will be refuted here. That doesn't justify the goons at your own forum who have the most idiotic beliefs such as Chinese space capability is equal to or superior to that of US. I think certain Chinese members don't like it when someone shows them the reality, it hurt your insecurities. By the way I am not talking crap about Chinese people but specific Chinese persons who live in US, are you not able to differentiate? You're probably one of those delusional goons who believes China's space capability is more advance than US lol, you live in Sweden, why don't you return to China since you love China so much.

You probably also believe the J-20 is superior to F-22 and probably believe in those stupid half-technical lies put out by a particular goon from that forum, lol. How can I be trashed by a forum whose senior members believe is lunatic radical beliefs, such as Chinese space capability is equal to or superior than US, you people made 1 space walk and all of sudden think you have become superior to the country that gave rise to your manufacturing industry.


----------



## A1Kaid

gambit said:


> J-20 pilots will be sucking on oxygen when they have to eject.



Do you think the J-20 is a genuine fifth generation aircraft or is it more like a pseudo-fifth generation? Considering what has been said about its avionics and other aspects.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Skull and Bones said:


> With the advent of L-Band radar, all shaped stealth like F-22, F-35, PAK-FA or J-20 is rendered ineffective, though L-Band doesn't provide high resolution to guide a BVR missile, but hen it can detect a stealth fighter at a distance of more than 200 km, it can have better situational awareness.
> 
> L-Band radar on Su-35, PAK FA will be equipped with L-Band radar in the LERX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-20, F-35 and F-22 will lack it, and the J-20 seems to be lacking in IRST too.



I believe that is not for detection and firing solution but for IFF.


----------



## terranMarine

Your assumption of me believing the things you have mentioned can't be found in my replies as i have never compared the F22 with J20 nor have i ever made any comparison between US and Chinese space technology. I don't think you have that much to attribute on both forums other than calling people goons whenever it suits you.


----------



## Skull and Bones

Agnostic_Indian said:


> I believe that is not for detection and firing solution but for IFF.



What, L-Band or IRST? I don't think IRST can identify friend or foe.

And L-Band is for low RCS platform in the airspace. And it's true L-Band can't provide enough resolution for identification and target acquisition.


----------



## A1Kaid

terranMarine said:


> Your assumption of me believing the things you have mentioned can't be found in my replies as i have never compared the F22 with J20 nor have i ever made any comparison between US and Chinese space technology. I don't think you have that much to attribute on both forums other than calling people goons whenever it suits you.



It's not specifically you but others whose lunacy you came here to defend. Why don't you stay out of it? Are you their boyfriend or lawyer you need to defend them? You probably know very well the extraordinary claims made about Chinese space capability and Chinese technological capability relative to US, its claimed China is equal or superior in x,y,z. But if you are going to defend them then I can presume you ideologically agree with them, or your just trying to help your fellow countrymen out of sake of shared nationality irrespective whether they be right or wrong.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Skull and Bones said:


> What, L-Band or IRST? I don't think IRST can identify friend or foe.
> 
> And L-Band is for low RCS platform in the airspace. And it's true L-Band can't provide enough resolution for identification and target acquisition.



L band, I heard it's L Land transponders for IFF.


----------



## Skull and Bones

Agnostic_Indian said:


> L band, I heard it's L Land transponders for IFF.



Possible, seems like i'll have to dig a bit more into it.


----------



## Skull and Bones

Agnostic_Indian said:


> L band, I heard it's L Land transponders for IFF.



Here's few things i found: 



> The PAK-FA therefore has true 360 degree coverage. The PAK-FA has L-Band radars mounted in the wing leading edges. These have both passive and active emitting roles and are key to &#8216;seeing&#8217; stealth aircraft such as the F-22.
> 
> The F-22&#8217;s stealth is generally optimized against X-band radars as that is what fighters generally use &#8211; L-Band is a much longer wavelength and can more easily detect stealth aircraft but is also less accurate -hence X-band radars are still used for routine intercept and virtually all fighters use X-Band.



Sukhoi PAK-FA T-50

According the anti-F-35 Karlo Kopp's site 



> Search, track and missile midcourse guidance against low signature aircraft.
> Identification Friend Foe / Secondary Surveillance Radar.
> Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS/MIDS/Link-16 emitters at long ranges.
> Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEW&C/AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
> Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges.
> High power active jamming of JTIDS/MIDS/Link-16 emitters.
> High power active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
> High power active jamming of L-band AEW&C/AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
> High power active jamming of guided munition command datalinks over large areas.



Assessing the Tikhomirov NIIP L-Band Active Electronically Steered Array


----------



## gambit

Skull and Bones said:


> With the advent of L-Band radar, *all shaped stealth like F-22, F-35, PAK-FA or J-20 is rendered ineffective,* though L-Band doesn't provide high resolution to guide a BVR missile, but hen it can detect a stealth fighter at a distance of more than 200 km, it can have better situational awareness.


Sorry, but no.

L band - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The X and L bands are ghz and they are actually not that far apart from each other on the scale. Remember that one factor of RCS creation is freq employed, so since no one really know how 'deep' are the F-22's and F-35's RCS into the clutter rejection threshold, there is no credible argument, let alone technical evidence, to say that the small L-band arrays mounted on wing leading edges, will do any good.

Bottom line is this: If you want to raise that body completely out of the clutter rejection threshold, either you lower that threshold, or use high metric freq.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

gambit said:


> Sorry, but no.
> 
> L band - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The X and L bands are ghz and they are actually not that far apart from each other on the scale. Remember that one factor of RCS creation is freq employed, so since no one really know how 'deep' are the F-22's and F-35's RCS into the clutter rejection threshold, there is no credible argument, let alone technical evidence, to say that the small L-band arrays mounted on wing leading edges, will do any good.
> 
> Bottom line is this: If you want to raise that body completely out of the clutter rejection threshold, either you lower that threshold, or use high metric freq.




What do you think about the J-20's cockpit and canopy design? Do you think it's similar to the F-22's if so in what way?











What do you think led the Chinese aeronautical engineers to choose this cockpit and canopy design for J-20?


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Skull and Bones said:


> Here's few things i found:
> 
> 
> 
> Sukhoi PAK-FA T-50
> 
> According the anti-F-35 Karlo Kopp's site
> 
> 
> 
> Assessing the Tikhomirov NIIP L-Band Active Electronically Steered Array



http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/78980598?width=320

check this out (p.28)and tell me what you think it is, I am not sure whether it's only iff or multi function aesa.

I can see @gambit there, what do you think sir ?


----------



## gambit

A1Kaid said:


> Do you think the J-20 is a genuine fifth generation aircraft or is it more like a pseudo-fifth generation? Considering what has been said about its avionics and other aspects.


The problem here is that when it comes to 'stealth', people still based their opinions upon appearances, and unfortunately, it is a reasonable, even if incomplete, assumption.

The J-20 is a highly refined MIG 1.44. Or what the 1.44 would have been if the Soviets continued that program. The Chinese took that basic planform and incorporated known RCS control methods onto it. Not an easy task because outer re-shaping of any existing planform inevitably affect the original aerodynamics. What they did was very much an engineering leap worthy of any high caliber aviation power aspirant.

Look at it this way: The B-2 is a highly refined Northrop YB-49 (1947). Or what the -49 would have been had Northrop continued that program.

My opinion -- *STRICTLY* from a sensor specialist perspective -- is that the J-20 approaches the so called '5th gen' category. May be even a little bit better than the F-15 Silent Eagle variant.

But there are many unknown regarding avionics, for example...

Flying the F/A-18F Super Hornet


> 2.2 The Virtual Speedbrake
> The next handling demonstration involved involved the speedbrake and some high alpha low speed handling, an area in which many fighters experience problems in maintaining direction and avoiding a departure into uncontrolled flight.
> 
> The first demonstration involved the virtual speedbrake effectiveness and handling in this configuration. *The F/A-18A-D, like the F-15 series, employs an upper fuselage hydraulically deployed speedbrake. The Super Hornet has no such device, yet achieves the same effect through what can only be described as digital magic. The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.*
> 
> Dave demonstrated the speedbrake function, and I was asked to observe over the shoulder and in the mirrors the raised ailerons, lowered trailing flaps, raised spoilers and splayed out rudders. Deceleration is smooth and there is no observable pitch change.
> 
> At Mach 0.63 Dave invited me to fly another 360 aileron roll, to observe that the aircraft retains considerable control authority despite the fact that the rudders are splayed out, and the ailerons, spoilers and flaps are generating balanced opposing pitching moments. I applied roughly 1/2 stick input and the aircraft very cleanly rolled through 360 degrees at about 90 degrees/sec roll rate. I commented on the lower roll rate and Dave observed that we were significantly slower, he then proceeded to demonstrate the roll again with a full stick input, producing around 180 degrees/sec with a slight overshoot on recovery. The aircraft feels very stable throughout the manoeuvre and there is no observable change in control forces or control input response by the FCS.


The -18SH removed the speedbrake completely and introduced much more complex flight control laws to create the same effect via tightly coordinated deflections and movements of *ALL* flight control surfaces. And if the pilot want to maneuver while in speedbrake mode, those laws will allow additional maneuvers without affecting controllability and stability throughout the maneuvers.

This is very much '5th gen' flight control laws and we saw samples of that in F-22 airshow demos. These laws have push/pull relationships with planform and engines. Sometimes the aerodynamicists will create a planform that will allow greater latitude (push) on what the flight control engineers can do. Sometimes it is from Aerodynamics and Propulsion. Sometimes Avionics will demand (pull) that Aerodynamics and Propulsion change and/or create something new.

We do not know anything else about the J-20 regarding these other expected '5th gen' functions. Nothing about sensor integration. And the engine is still below par. So for now, I cannot categorize the J-20 as a 'legit 5th gen' fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PITA

Gambit,

Any idea on how far you think China is from what you would consider a straight up 5th gen fighter? Is there anyway you gauge where China is from the technological advances of today compared to years past? Where does China stand in technological capability compared to other countries?

Thx

If my questions don't make sense it's because, I'll be the first to admit, that my knowledge in this area is limited but if there is any insight you can provide, it'd be much appreciated.


----------



## gambit

A1Kaid said:


> What do you think about the J-20's cockpit and canopy design? Do you think it's similar to the F-22's if so in what way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think led the Chinese aeronautical engineers to choose this cockpit and canopy design for J-20?


The Chinese did not clone, but pretty much copied all the major functions, and incorporated into the J-20 as part of the overall RCS control methods. We do not have precise measurements of canopy rise, arcs, density, materials, transparency (clarity) measurements, etc. But let us be real here...

Technically speaking, the F-16 have a true 'bubble canopy', while all others, including the F-15 and F-22, have hybrids of being 'frameless' and 'bubble'. I got that straight from a General Dynamics tech rep back in 1987. A true bubble canopy is more difficult to manufacture than hybrids.

A major copy from the F-22 is the forward fuselage shape...






The F-22's forward fuselage is shaped that way for precise combination of aerodynamics and RCS control demands.

A cone under radar bombardment exhibit unique RCS signatures that rises in intensity from the broad quarter towards the tip. Here is where the 10-lambda (wavelength) rule applies.

If the diameter is larger than 10 wavelengths, then there will be no creeping wave effect. The creeping wave behavior is when the surface wave travels completely around the diameter (sphere or cylinder) and return to source direction on the other side. If the diameter is less than 10 wavelengths, then the creeping wave behavior will occur.

A cone is slightly different in that the diameter decreases in a gradual manner, which increases RCS intensity.

The F-15's forward fuselage section, which includes the radome, is quite cylindrical. While the fuselage itself is greater than 10-lambda and is immune from the creeping wave behavior, the radome itself is not. The F-15's and F-16's radomes will exhibit those unique RCS signatures common to the cone. The SR-71's forward fuselage section is quite angular, which results in direct reflections more than surface waves.

Put them together and we have the F-22's forward fuselage shape the way it is. The ridges on both sides are surface discontinuities or radiators designed to 'leap' off any surface wave behaviors into free space, and this will be on the opposite or 'shadow' side of the seeking radar's position.

Basically, any radar angle approach on the forward fuselage section will deny the seeking radar that unique conical RCS signature common to previous generations. There is *NOTHING* on the F-22 and F-35 that is omitted from precise analyses regarding RCS contributorship and the Chinese know this.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

Agnostic_Indian said:


> PAK T-50 5G Russian Plane
> 
> check this out (p.28)and tell me what you think it is, I am *not sure whether it's only iff or multi function* aesa.
> 
> I can see @gambit there, what do you think sir ?


Not much to tell here. But let me put it this way...If you have an AESA array, you are halfway towards a true real time multi-function radar system. Your only limitations are software and how large is that array. You must have an active, as in AESA, and not passive, as in PESA.






In the above simple example, which one is a physical antenna that is divided into 9 logical arrays for nine different tasks -- *SIMULTANEOUSLY* ?

That division is called 'sub-array partitioning' and choreography...

Digital Array Radar Panel Development | EEWeb


> ...simultaneous transmit and receive operation through *subarray partitioning*...


Your software flexibility is restrained by the physical quantity and layout of the individual transmit/receive (T/R) elements.

So if we take a look at how a beam is formed by the antenna's physical layout...






Which is that for a highly linear physical layout, the beam will be fan shaped and 90 deg from antenna orientation. So for a wing leading edge config, you will have a vertically oriented fan beam that sweeps horizontally (side-side).

There is no advantage in having an AESA array in this highly restrained configuration. PESA will do just fine. An AESA system can perform tactical queries (IFF) as well as volume search -- *SIMULTANEOUSLY*. But if you have only a linear physical layout that is dictated by location on the aircraft, a PESA system can switched between IFF and volume search rapidly enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gambit

PITA said:


> Gambit,
> 
> Any idea on *how far you think China is from what you would consider a straight up 5th gen fighter?* Is there anyway you gauge where China is from the technological advances of today compared to years past? Where does China stand in technological capability compared to other countries?
> 
> Thx
> 
> If my questions don't make sense it's because, I'll be the first to admit, that my knowledge in this area is limited but if there is any insight you can provide, it'd be much appreciated.


Not very far, to me.

However, China is still at least one generation behind US. The Russkies will not like it, but I will say that Chinese aviation, for all practical purposes, is statistically little different from Russia. The Russians have been largely evolutionary in their designs and the PAK is no different. In making the J-20, the Chinese effectively said to the Russians 'S T F U, we do not need U any more.'

I would say that the next Chinese 'stealth' fighter must have technological parity to US in terms of avionics and aerodynamics, like how the the F-16 was the leap and became the foundation for inherent instability and fly-by-wire for later fighters, else the Russians will get ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hyperion

I feel as if they would catch up with the US within 15 - 20 years.



gambit said:


> Not very far, to me.
> 
> However, China is still at least one generation behind US. The Russkies will not like it, but I will say that Chinese aviation, for all practical purposes, is statistically little different from Russia. The Russians have been largely evolutionary in their designs and the PAK is no different. In making the J-20, the Chinese effectively said to the Russians 'S T F U, we do not need U any more.'
> 
> I would say that the next Chinese 'stealth' fighter must have technological parity to US in terms of avionics and aerodynamics, like how the the F-16 was the leap and became the foundation for inherent instability and fly-by-wire for later fighters, else the Russians will get ahead.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> The problem here is that when it comes to 'stealth', people still based their opinions upon appearances, and unfortunately, it is a reasonable, *even if incomplete, assumption.*
> 
> The J-20 is a highly refined MIG 1.44. Or what the 1.44 would have been if the Soviets continued that program.* The Chinese took that basic planform and incorporated known RCS control methods onto it.* Not an easy task because outer re-shaping of any existing planform inevitably affect the original aerodynamics. What they did was very much an engineering leap worthy of any high caliber aviation power aspirant.
> 
> Look at it this way: The B-2 is a highly refined Northrop YB-49 (1947). Or what the -49 would have been had Northrop continued that program.



This is also assumption? or any evidence?

Why didn't the chinese took the basic planform from Eurofighter or Rafale or J-10?

Am I wrong if I assume that they took the basic planform from J-10 or the predecessor?





> My opinion -- *STRICTLY* from a sensor specialist perspective -- is that the J-20 approaches the so called '5th gen' category. May be even a little bit better than the F-15 Silent Eagle variant.



According to your opinion, how is the PAKFA compared with the F-15 SE in term of stealth?

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## scobydoo

antonius123 said:


> This is also assumption? or any evidence?
> 
> Why didn't the chinese took the basic planform from Eurofighter or Rafale or J-10?
> 
> Am I wrong if I assume that they took the basic planform from J-10 or the predecessor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to your opinion, how is the PAKFA compared with the F-15 SE in term of stealth?
> 
> Thanks.


Lu IJKT ya? 

Berasa kayak nonton debat lu sama si Danub.


----------



## Jayanta

PITA said:


> Gambit,
> 
> Any idea on how far you think China is from what you would consider a straight up 5th gen fighter? Is there anyway you gauge where China is from the technological advances of today compared to years past? Where does China stand in technological capability compared to other countries?
> 
> Thx
> 
> If my questions don't make sense it's because, I'll be the first to admit, that my knowledge in this area is limited but if there is any insight you can provide, it'd be much appreciated.



I feel China's work is appreciable. One cannot compare two fighter until its fully ready...even the so called best fighter F-22 is not flawless, only 190 manufactured, further manufacture stopped, has never been in any combat situation...not used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc. the flights were grounded when pilots complained of hypoxia, even pilots came out in the media. Developing a 5th gen fighter needs technological expertise...the technology demonstrator flown by China proves they are in the race.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## j20blackdragon

gambit said:


> The J-20 is a highly refined MIG 1.44. Or what the 1.44 would have been if the Soviets continued that program. The Chinese took that basic planform and incorporated known RCS control methods onto it. Not an easy task because outer re-shaping of any existing planform inevitably affect the original aerodynamics. What they did was very much an engineering leap worthy of any high caliber aviation power aspirant.



Next gambit will tell us that a Ferrari is nothing more than a modified Toyota Corolla because they both have 4 wheels and a windshield.









> My opinion -- *STRICTLY* from a sensor specialist perspective -- is that the J-20 approaches the so called '5th gen' category. May be even a little bit better than the F-15 Silent Eagle variant.



You're being too generous.

The purpose-built J-20 stealth fighter should obviously be inferior to a F-15 (a 1970s aircraft) with conformal weapon bays.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

j20blackdragon said:


> Next gambit will tell us that a Ferrari is nothing more than a modified Toyota Corolla because they both have 4 wheels and a windshield.


Actually, that would be how the Chinese members here would argue.

Your man Marty has proven himself intellectually dishonest and inconsistent many times over. When he wanted to push the J-20 away from the PAK-FA and on a par with the F-22, he persistently pushed the 'continuous curvatures' argument. When he wanted to distinguish the J-20 from the F-35, he persistently pushed the angled faceting technique and posted incomplete sources on how curvatures are detrimental to 'stealth'.



The reason why he is inconsistent is because he has no relevant experience, does not study whatever publicly available information there are, and worst, he allowed his ego to get in the way. Now he is laughably an aviation 'expert' over at your playground.



j20blackdragon said:


> You're being too generous.
> 
> The purpose-built J-20 stealth fighter should obviously be inferior to a F-15 (a 1970s aircraft) with conformal weapon bays.


At least no one here can credibly accuse me of being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent, not when I can support my arguments and even encourages people to prove me wrong with my sources and keyword searches. Being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent is the worst anyone can be in any debate, technical or else.


----------



## gambit

Jayanta said:


> I feel China's work is appreciable.


So do I.



Jayanta said:


> One cannot compare two fighter until its fully ready...even the so called best fighter F-22 is not flawless,...


We never said it is. In fact, I have always say that in radar detection, *NOTHING* is invisible, not even the F-22. And that an aircraft is an exercise in compelled compromises, and that includes the F-22.



Jayanta said:


> ...only 190 manufactured, further manufacture stopped,...


Because of financial constraints.



Jayanta said:


> ...has never been in any combat situation...not used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc.


Because there is no need to send it there.

Air combat is essentially mano-a-mano affairs. In exercises that we conducted where the only restrictions were altitude limit and live weapons, the F-22 always came out ahead, against any adversary, ours or foreign fighters. You cannot get any more latitude than altitude limits and live weapons.

That argument will be laughed at by professional pilots, civilian and military.



Jayanta said:


> the flights were grounded when pilots complained of hypoxia, even pilots came out in the media.


Any credible technical arguments to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that this problem cannot be solved? I bet that you did no research on it at all.



Jayanta said:


> Developing a 5th gen fighter needs technological expertise...the technology demonstrator flown by China proves they are in the race.


With US at least one lap ahead.


----------



## antonius123

gambit said:


> Actually, that would be how the Chinese members here would argue.
> 
> Your man Marty has proven himself intellectually dishonest and inconsistent many times over. When he wanted to push the J-20 away from the PAK-FA and on a par with the F-22, he persistently pushed the 'continuous curvatures' argument. When he wanted to distinguish the J-20 from the F-35, he persistently pushed the angled faceting technique and posted incomplete sources on how curvatures are detrimental to 'stealth'.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why he is inconsistent is because he has no relevant experience, does not study whatever publicly available information there are, and worst, he allowed his ego to get in the way. Now he is laughably an aviation 'expert' over at your playground.
> 
> 
> At least no one here can credibly accuse me of being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent, not when I can support my arguments and even encourages people to prove me wrong with my sources and keyword searches. Being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent is the worst anyone can be in any debate, technical or else.



In fact His argument is quite SOLID.

Your accusation that J-20 took "basic planform of Mig 1.44 and incorporated known RCS control methods onto it" - is really questionable.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...r-better-than-f-35-pakfa-6.html#ixzz2Kr8ctsks

You need to answer my question about your claim J-20 took basic planform of Mig 1.44, and also respond J20 Blackdragon argument properly to prove your honesty. No offence, but ignoring and evading is sign of dishonesty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zon95

Oh fool from sinodefence, J-20 with a supermassive Canard can make it invisible?! 











Idiot did not even know that J-20 weapons to wear outside


----------



## Beast

vietminh said:


> Oh fool from sinodefence, J-20 with a supermassive Canard can make it invisible?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot did not even know that J-20 weapons to wear outside



Oh! Look who's the fool talking. Its better to listen to expert comment than some viet kid. 

Chengdu J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype / A Preliminary Assessment



> The J-XX/J-20 is a large fighter, similar in size to an F-111. This first-of-type aircraft presents with a large dihedral canard-delta wing configuration; with a pair of outward/rearward canted all moving combined vertical/horizontal tails; and, similarly large, outward canted ventral fins/strakes which, if all moving like the tails and retained on any production version, will make for some quite advanced capability options in the areas of controllability and manoeuvrability. There is little doubt this configuration is intended to provide good sustained supersonic cruise performance with a suitable engine type, and good manoeuvre performance in transonic and supersonic regimes.
> *The stealth shaping is without doubt considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and, even more so, than that seen in the intended production configuration of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
> The J-XX/J-20 design appears to be largely built around the stealth shaping design rules employed in the F-22A Raptor:
> The chined J-XX/J-20 nose section and canopy are close in appearance to the F-22, yielding similar signature performance in a mature design.
> The J-XX/J-20 trapezoidal edge aligned engine inlets are closest to the F-22, though appear to be larger and employ an F-35 style DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) design, obviously intended to improve on F-22 inlet edge signature.
> The J-XX/J-20 wing fuselage join, critical for beam and all aspect stealth, is in shaping and angle very similar to the F-22, and clearly superior to both the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
> The J-XX/J-20 flat lower fuselage is optimal for all aspect wideband stealth, and emulates the F-22 design closely.
> Planform alignment of the J-XX/J-20 shows exact angular alignment between canard and delta leading edges, and exact crossed (starboard to port, port to starboard) angular edge alignment between canard and delta trailing edges. Leading edge sweep is ~43°, clearly intended for efficient supersonic flight.
> The J-XX/J-20 nose and main undercarriage doors employ X-band optimised edge serration technology, based on F-117A and F-22 design rules.
> The aft fuselage, tailbooms, fins/strakes and axi-symmetric nozzles are not compatible with high stealth performance, but may only be stop-gap measures to expedite flight testing of a prototype.
> The airframe configuration and aft fuselage shape would be compatible with an F-22A style 2D TVC nozzle design, or a non-TVC rectangular nozzle designed for controlled infrared emission patterns and radio-frequency stealth.
> The airframe configuration is compatible with ventral and side opening internal weapon bays, and large enough to match or exceed, by some degree, the internal weapons payload of the F-22A Raptor.*
> Internal fuel fraction is also likely to be high, given the fuselage configuration and large internal volume of the big delta wing. This indicates an intent to provide a sustained supersonic cruise capability, in the manner of the proposed FB-22.
> The PLA have not disclosed the engine type. There are claims that the Russians supplied supercruise capable 117S series engines, though, subject to the overall efficiency of the aircraft&#8217;s aerodynamics, these would likely not be sufficient to extract the full performance potential of this advanced airframe.
> The intended sensor suite remains unknown. China has yet to demonstrate an AESA radar, or an advanced indigenous Emitter Locating System (ELS). However, these could become available by the time this airframe enters production. Suitable Russian hardware is currently in late development and/or test.



Probably F-22 shall also be idiot for hanging the weapon outside.. 

Conclusion, don't make a fool of yourself by talking thing which you have no idea. I believe most vietnamese are intelligent compare to this smart alec who try to make a fool of most vietnamese.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------

