j20blackdragon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 2,224
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
DSI and no more canards.
Not much left to criticize now.
Not much left to criticize now.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why not? Did they learned something?DSI and no more canards.
Sure. Looks like an F-35Not much left to criticize now.
Why not? Did they learned something?
Sure. Looks like an F-35
Me a neophyte? You learned more from me than you could ever repay in kind, kid. Twin engined or not, it looks like the overall shape is lifted from the F-35. The reason why the F-35 is single-engined is because of the requirement for VTOL.Only a neophyte would claim the SAIC plane looks like a F-35. The Chinese plane is a twin-engine fighter. Go look at pictures of the F-35, it has a single engine. Their missions are completely different.
The Chinese twin-engine plane is designed as a multi-role combat fighter. The F-35 was designed primarily a a strike fighter. Anyone who is familiar with the F-35 would know its history.
DSI and no more canards.
Not much left to criticize now.
The man will come up with some version of 'Chinese physics' to say something about 'stealth'.Looks good better than J20.
Going by Martin's logic..it's not stealth fighter as cause Chinese designers forget to put saw tooth panels.
Me a neophyte? You learned more from me than you could ever repay in kind, kid. Twin engined or not, it looks like the overall shape is lifted from the F-35. The reason why the F-35 is single-engined is because of the requirement for VTOL.
I would think that by now, after all the explanations I have given about RCS measurements and their pitfalls, you would know better than to take someone's opinion as gospel. The difference between you and I is that I am more honest than you are about this matter. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' DO NOT raise the aircraft above a certain threshold, those 'lumps and bumps' DO NOT matter. It really is amazing that you consistently failed to understand this -- threshold.Furthermore, the F-35 has had numerous ad-hoc changes to make it more survivable with the development of the J-20 Mighty Dragon. The F-35 has been given a gun, which creates a non-stealthy bump above the pilot's port-side airduct.
Also, the underside of the F-35 has been completely ruined. The weapons payload bay has been expanded to accommodate air-to-air weapons and larger bombs. The F-35 underside is not stealthy anymore (see Australia Air Power citation; link: Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities).
You have yet to 'correct' me on anything. You have never corrected me on anything. It is YOU who have been misleading the interested readers here and am willing to put my arguments against yours any day.Stop saying stupid things and I won't have to correct you. Otherwise, you'll mislead all of the forum readers. They'll leave the thread and think the SAIC twin-engine multirole combat fighter is similar to the F-35 single engine strike aircraft with a ruined underside.
@ Dear Martian, Please analyze following pictures and enlighten us about stealth deficiencies in this design ...regards.
This argument is completely wrong. Not because the IRST device structure is not radar reflecting. It is. But your argument is wrong on a more fundamental issue -- threshold -- which apparently you do not understand.Thirdly, the SAIC design is superior to the Sukhoi T-50/Pak-Fa, because the Chinese fighter does not have a radar-reflecting protruding IRST.
This argument is completely wrong. Not because the IRST device structure is not radar reflecting. It is. But your argument is wrong on a more fundamental issue -- threshold -- which apparently you do not understand.
No...It is YOU who are clueless. Just about 99.999% of surface structures on any aircraft, including the F-117, F-22, and the J-20, is larger than a single X-band pulse.You're clueless.
X-band radar can easily see the "large" IRST probe. X-band wavelength is 2.5 to 4 cm.
Are you arguing the IRST probe is smaller than 4 cm?
No...It is YOU who are clueless. Just about 99.999% of surface structures on any aircraft, including the F-117, F-22, and the J-20, is larger than a single X-band pulse.
Every surface structure is legitimately a 'SURFACE DISCONTINUITY' and that include the T-50's IRST device structure.
So take a look at this...
How many 'surface discontinuities' do you see there? And yet the F-117 set the initial standard for 'stealth'. In fact, the F-117 produces far more 'surface discontinuities' than the F-22 and B-2 COMBINED.
Do you now see how wrong is the IRST argument?