Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[siegecrossbow]

I think it would be more appropriate if we post it under the J-16 speculations thread.

 

[Martian2]

What you told me was irrelevant, claiming that canards are paper thin from the front only shows that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Further, I always maintained that canards may have negligible or little impact on the J-20, what I did do was explained why it could increase RCS and I only did this after you or others like you started talking nonsense about the pak-fa.

Speaking of trolling if I recall correctly you actually started a thread in another forum for no other reason then to take cheep shots at the pak-fa, the worst part about it was that most of the nonsense you said about the pak-fa was from the perspective of someone with zero understanding about aircraft or 'stealth'.

And what would that be? Unless Goon just so happened to have a J-20 and an anechoic chamber handy I can not take his internet estimates seriously.

Based on the RCS benchmarks from Global Security, I have consistently stated the following for the last six months:

Ranking of world stealth fighters:

1. F-22 0.0001 m2

2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2

3. F-35 0.005 m2

4. French Rafale 1 m2

5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2

6. F-16 5 m2

I have cited Global Security, Australia Air Power, and many other experts. As an irrational Russian nationalist, you PtldM3, have only rhetoric; which have been proven to be incorrect and based only on wishful thinking.

 

[gambit]

Are you still trolling this thread? Didn't I tell you that the canards were irrelevant to the J-20 Mighty Dragon's RCS profile?

The results from Australia Air Power's ""Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" prove my point.

Before you start disparaging Australia Air Power's Mr. Goon, you might want to look at his impressive credentials (see CV - Peter Goon - APA Co-founder).

He's an expert. You're not.

Buddy...The section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' is three times as long as 'What the Simulation Does Demonstrate'. I doubt that you actually read the whole thing and understood 1/10th of it.

Here is what the section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' said right from the start...

The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from edge diffraction effects, although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by edge treatments;

Wow...In other words, this 'Preliminary Assessment' is full of holes by the author's own admission.

In all instances, the errors arising from the limitations of the PO computation method all fall into areas where well established RCS reduction treatments using RAS, RAM or coatings would be used, thus reducing the relative magnitude of the errors in the resulting RCS result for angles other than the peak mainlobes produced by these backscatter sources.

Let me see if I get this straight...

A physical optics computation was performed based PURELY upon physical dimensions derived from a non-controlled photographic experience. Right there is caused for concern. Then the author boldly proclaimed that if there are any errors, those errors would be compensated by materials based RCS reduction methods. But no one sees anything wrong with that.

 

[Martian2]

Buddy...The section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' is three times as long as 'What the Simulation Does Demonstrate'. I doubt that you actually read the whole thing and understood 1/10th of it.

Here is what the section 'What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate' said right from the start...

Backscatter is minor and applies to all fighters. Once again, you made a big deal out of the J-20's canards. You have been proven wrong.

Wow...In other words, this 'Preliminary Assessment' is full of holes by the author's own admission.

My statements on the J-20 canards are far more accurate than your false claims.

I said the J-20 canards were irrelevant for four reasons:

1. Composite material composition

2. RAM coating

3. Curved surface to deflect radar waves

4. Small incremental increase in surface area

You and PtldM3 are ridiculous. Your claim will always be: "Well, we can't know with absolute certainty until we put a J-20 in an anechoic chamber." We don't even know the results of a F-22 in an anechoic chamber. Under your ridiculous standard, you will always make whatever ludicrous claims that the two of you like.

You make it sound as if backscatter doesn't apply to all planes.

However, based on known knowledge and available testing tools, the world stealth fighter rankings and their associated RCS is probably very close to what I have listed.

----------

Ranking of world stealth fighters:

1. F-22 0.0001 m2

2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2

3. F-35 0.005 m2

4. French Rafale 1 m2

5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2

6. F-16 5 m2

 

[gambit]

My statements on the J-20 canards are far more accurate than your false claims.

I said the J-20 canards were irrelevant for four reasons:

1. Composite material composition

2. RAM coating

3. Curved surface to deflect radar waves

4. Small incremental increase in surface area

You and PtldM3 are ridiculous. Your claim will always be: "Well, we can't know with absolute certainty until we put a J-20 in an anechoic chamber." We don't even know the results of a F-22 in an anechoic chamber. Under your ridiculous standard, you will always make whatever ludicrous claims that the two of you like.

You make it sound as if backscatter doesn't apply to all planes.

However, based on known knowledge and available testing tools, the world stealth fighter rankings and their associated RCS is probably very close to what I have listed.

----------

Ranking of world stealth fighters:

1. F-22 0.0001 m2

2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2

3. F-35 0.005 m2

4. French Rafale 1 m2

5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2

6. F-16 5 m2

What is truly false claims here are YOURS. You made several baseless assumptions to start.

First...Composite materials does not guarantee absorbance. So the composite materials can be tossed.

Second...Absorbers are not %100 effective. There are always trace EM reflections from the surface. And it is their behaviors that are unpredictable.

Third...Curvature on the canards is a given but altering them for RCS reduction purposes would affect their airfoil shapes, reducing aerodynamic effectiveness.

And the fourth is meaningless.

So it is YOU who is making false and misleading claims.

 

[ptldM3]

Ranking of world stealth fighters:

1. F-22 0.0001 m2

2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2

3. F-35 0.005 m2

4. French Rafale 1 m2

5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2
6. F-16 5 m2

I do hope you know that none of those are official but interestingly enough Sukhoi did reveal the SU-47's RCS and it was 0.3 m2, so tell me with all of the experience from the SU-47 program how did Sukhoi manage to make an aircraft with a far worse RCS despite a superior design?

 

[Martian2]

I do hope you know that none of those are official but interestingly enough Sukhoi did reveal the SU-47's RCS and it was 0.3 m2, so tell me with all of the experience from the SU-47 program how did Sukhoi manage to make an aircraft with a far worse RCS despite a superior design?

Russians were low on money and chose an affordable design. If you have a better citation than Global Security, a widely-recognized source of information on military issues, I would like to see it.

----------

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm

"Praise from Others

"GlobalSecurity.org is an invaluable resource on military, intelligence and national security matters." [Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack, Simon & Schuster, April 2004]

National Journal's Guide To The Web: Iraq -- Peacekeeping National Journal (12/05/2003) "I find the Global Security Web site offers the best compilation of up-to-date news reports on Iraq, hard-to-find briefing materials from the Pentagon and other sources, and a comprehensive archive of articles and reports relating to Iraq. They also tend to steer clear of a lot of subjective analysis and stick to the straight facts."

National Journal's Guide To The Web: Military Transformation National Journal (12/05/2003) "Want to know more about the missiles that shot down U.S. helicopters in Iraq? Or how many U.S. forces are in which countries around the world? Or the brief history of each of 31 civil wars and uprisings currently under way around the globe? Or are you interested in the history of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone? That's just a fraction of the staggering (and sometimes bewildering) database compiled by the eminently quotable John Pike at GlobalSecurity.org."

National Journal's Guide To The Web: Weapons of Mass Destruction National Journal (12/05/2003) "GlobalSecurity.org mounts an extensive site covering the full spectrum of WMD issues, but providing a unique focus on U.S. weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities and policies. Want to know the status of Minuteman III ICBMs in North Dakota? Check this site first. Look here also for fresh satellite imagery of possible nuclear sites in the "axis of evil" nations. John Pike, another Web pioneer, heads the site and ensures an exhaustive supply of information."

"Gearheads will want to keep tabs on GlobalSecurity.org, the brainchild of defense guru John Pike. Great backgrounders here on the fedayeen and urban warfare, plus tons and tons of useful maps." [The Village Voice]

"Terry Atlas, assistant managing editor of U.S News and World Report, reads the Web sites of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org) and GlobalSecurity.org, which has detailed satellite photos."

"The website that puts you in the commander-in-chief's chair." [The Times (London)]

"If conflict does erupt in the Gulf every private would be well-advised to take that proverbial Field Marshall's baton out of their packs and substitute it with a laptop with access to John Pike's superb site!" [Jonathan Macus, Defence Correspondent, BBC]

"With all the speculation about American intentions for Iraq, there has been one place where, to the chagrin of the administration, people can find a few hard facts." [The New York Times September 22, 2002]

" ... online resources such as GlobalSecurity.org's "Target: Iraq" are the closest thing we may have to thoughtful analysis of the matter. Includes pros and cons of attack, the likeliest battle scenarios, weaponry at our disposal, and more." USA Today

Ira Flatow NPR Talk of the Nation ".. go to John Pike's site and look up all this security stuff at GlobalSecurity.org.."

CNN's Joie Chen "A lot of us have turned into news junkies by what happened on September 11, and since that time.... One that I particularly liked is GlobalSecurity.org."

Forbes Best of the Web "There's no need to bother with TV's know-it-all talking heads and obnoxious ads when you can download the same videos and images from Pike's site.."

The National Journal GlobalSecurity.org ranked among the five "Best of the Top Sites" among Defense Web Sites.

"The respected defense consultant GlobalSecurity.org serves up an online compendium of info about the war on terrorism." USA Today"

 

[SpArK]

My statements on the J-20 canards are far more accurate than your false claims.

I said the J-20 canards were irrelevant for four reasons:

1. Composite material composition

2. RAM coating

3. Curved surface to deflect radar waves

4. Small incremental increase in surface area

You and PtldM3 are ridiculous. Your claim will always be: "Well, we can't know with absolute certainty until we put a J-20 in an anechoic chamber." We don't even know the results of a F-22 in an anechoic chamber. Under your ridiculous standard, you will always make whatever ludicrous claims that the two of you like.

You make it sound as if backscatter doesn't apply to all planes.

However, based on known knowledge and available testing tools, the world stealth fighter rankings and their associated RCS is probably very close to what I have listed.

----------

Ranking of world stealth fighters:

1. F-22 0.0001 m2

2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2

3. F-35 0.005 m2

4. French Rafale 1 m2

5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2

6. F-16 5 m2

Very funny indeed.

 

[ptldM3]

Russians were low on money and chose an affordable design. If you have a better citation than Global Security, a widely-recognized source of information on military issues, I would like to see it.

The SU-47 was an affordable design, in fact to save money it barrowed the SU-27's frontal fuselage, yet with all of this Sukhoi revealed the SU-47 to have a 0.3 m2 rcs, so again, how does the pak-fa, a program that is based off of the SU-47 experience and a program that has greater funding compared to the SU-47 manage to balloon its RCS all the way to 3 m2?

 

[Martian2]

The SU-47 was an affordable design, in fact to save money it barrowed the SU-27's frontal fuselage, yet with all of this Sukhoi revealed the SU-47 to have a 0.3 m2 rcs, so again, how does the pak-fa, a program that is based off of the SU-47 experience and a program that has greater funding compared to the SU-47 manage to balloon its RCS all the way to 3 m2?

You can play around with your own little joke.

French Rafale's engine is 90% hidden. The plane has a RCS of 1m2, according to Global Security.

Russian Pak-Fa/T-50 has completely-exposed engine blades, it warrants a higher RCS of 3m2, which is my best estimate.

Simple physics analysis.

 

[Black Widow]

My January 22, 2011 post:

My estimate of J-20's RCS is 0.005-0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db)

Radar Cross Section (RCS)

Radar Cross Section (RCS) / RCS (m2) / RCS (dB)

1. automobile 100 20
2. B-52 100
3. B-1(A/B) 10
4. F-15 25
5. Su-27 15
6. cabin cruiser 10 10
   [*]Su-MKI 4
7. Mig-21 3
8. F-16 5
9. F-16C 1.2
10. man 1 0
11. F-18 1
12. Rafale 1
13. B-2 0.75 ?
14. Typhoon 0.5
15. Tomahawk SLCM 0.5
16. B-2 0.1 ?
17. A-12/SR-71 0.01 (22 in2)
18. bird 0.01 -20
19. F-35 / JSF 0.005 -30
20. F-117 0.003
21. insect 0.001 -30
22. F-22 0.0001 -40
23. B-2 0.0001 -40

Its good news nice to hear that MKI has 3m2 frontal RCS (in clean configuration)

 

[SpArK]

Its good news nice to hear that MKI has 3m2 frontal RCS (in clean configuration)

Nowadays RCS is determined by fanboys by guessing and looking at pictures. Amazing technology , Isnt it?

 

[Martian2]

Nowadays RCS is determined by fanboys by guessing and looking at pictures. Amazing technology , Isnt it?

My estimate has been the most accurate. Six months ago, I said the J-20 was inferior to the F-22, but superior to the F-35 in RCS. The "Physical Optic simulation" from Australia Air Power has confirmed by assessment.

Excerpt from Australia Air Power:

Air Power Australia’s application of the Laws of Physics to the J-20 Physical Optic simulation analysis produces facts. Opinions that ignore the facts produce hubristic [Hubristic: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance] statements.

Both Gambit and PtldM3 were dead wrong in their predictions.

I have the most credibility here with my impartial analysis, reasoning, support with facts, and citations to reputable sources. Those two guys only have rhetoric and predictions that have been proven false.

 

[houshanghai]

Based on the RCS benchmarks from Global Security, I have consistently stated the following for the last six months:

Ranking of world stealth fighters:

1. F-22 0.0001 m2

2. J-20 0.005-0.0001 m2

3. F-35 0.005 m2

4. French Rafale 1 m2

5. Russian Pak-Fa (or T-50) 3 m2

6. F-16 5 m2

I have cited Global Security, Australia Air Power, and many other experts. As an irrational Russian nationalist, you PtldM3, have only rhetoric; which have been proven to be incorrect and based only on wishful thinking.

bro
To ignore these troller.
PT04 J20 is going to be absolutely different in 2014.
believe me.

ps:haha, j20 will have EODAS .however f22 haven't it.
This was a big advantage as j20

And there will be laser weapon about j20

 

[SpArK]

My estimate has been the most accurate. Six months ago, I said the J-20 was inferior to the F-22 and superior to the F-35 in RCS. The Physics Simulations from Australia Air Power has confirmed by assessment.

Air Power Australia’s application of the Laws of Physics to the J-20 Physical Optic simulation analysis produces facts. Opinions that ignore the facts produce hubristic [Hubristic: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance] statements.

Mate , i dont think you went with T-50 into a RCS chamber and recorded it by urself .

PAK-FA is on testing phase and physical modifications including radar blockers will be there making it stealthier.

Your estimate is pure fanboyism and its okay in forums, cause it can make a few happy. Nothing more.