What's new

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

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.


Thanks for your analysis.. But my logic says,
Russians are making fighter plane since many decade, and if they have claimed it to be 5th gen, be sure it will be 5th gen only, nothing more, nothing less... I have seen many friends targeting PAK-FA's LEVCON, they claimed LEVCON could increase the RCS. When there plane roll out with huge Cancard, they start targeting the open engine ..... They assume due to Y duct and DSI Bump J20 is super stealth (This myth was busted by Gambit).


Second point is your wild guess of 3m2 RCS, MiG35 in clean config have RCS lesser than 3 sqm, how can you fool yourself that PAK-FA will have RCS 3sqm??? And finally, Russia is making PAK-FA to replace its fleet, its not something cheap made only for India...They will make it best ...
 
.
They did do testing with a mock up model of J-20 in an anechoic chamber at China's space agency, and they were very satisfied with the results. As far as Carlo Kopp goes, don't believe in him too much.
 
.
Thanks for your analysis.. But my logic says,
Russians are making fighter plane since many decade, and if they have claimed it to be 5th gen, be sure it will be 5th gen only, nothing more, nothing less... I have seen many friends targeting PAK-FA's LEVCON, they claimed LEVCON could increase the RCS. When there plane roll out with huge Cancard, they start targeting the open engine ..... They assume due to Y duct and DSI Bump J20 is super stealth (This myth was busted by Gambit).


Second point is your wild guess of 3m2 RCS, MiG35 in clean config have RCS lesser than 3 sqm, how can you fool yourself that PAK-FA will have RCS 3sqm??? And finally, Russia is making PAK-FA to replace its fleet, its not something cheap made only for India...They will make it best ...

The intake thing was explained many times. But it keeps coming back.

attachment.php
 
.
I have been to many USAF bases and have yet to see a single DEPLOYED aircraft from the above listed images.
Well you're about to see the world's first operational one in a few years then. Gotta travel more.
 
.
Thanks for your analysis.. But my logic says,
Russians are making fighter plane since many decade, and if they have claimed it to be 5th gen, be sure it will be 5th gen only, nothing more, nothing less... I have seen many friends targeting PAK-FA's LEVCON, they claimed LEVCON could increase the RCS. When there plane roll out with huge Cancard, they start targeting the open engine ..... They assume due to Y duct and DSI Bump J20 is super stealth (This myth was busted by Gambit).

Second point is your wild guess of 3m2 RCS, MiG35 in clean config have RCS lesser than 3 sqm, how can you fool yourself that PAK-FA will have RCS 3sqm??? And finally, Russia is making PAK-FA to replace its fleet, its not something cheap made only for India...They will make it best ...

1. Do you dispute the underside of the Pak-Fa/T-50 is a mess?

2. If you admit to "1" above then it is reasonable to believe Sukhoi skimped on the much-harder redesign for a serpentine air-inlet for the Pak-Fa/T-50. Hence, the result is a Pak-Fa/T-50 with a 3 m2 RCS from non-stealthy underside, exposed engine blades, and a whole host of other reasons in my citation below from Vijainder K Thakur.

----------

It doesn't take a genius to realize the Pak-Fa/T-50 is less stealthy than a French Rafale.

There are plenty of Russian T-50 deficiencies that everyone sees.

airsuperiority said:
The lower fuselage of the Flanker is extremely unstealthy. Doesn't take too much to figure that one out

Fhw3h.jpg

Russian T-50 underside is a messy design. Vents, gaps, stuff jutting out, etc. This is not stealthy.

The current Russian T-50 design has serious stealth limitations. If the Russian government has any sense, it will demand that Sukhoi radically redesign the T-50 to match the J-20 and F-22 in serpentine air-inlets, DSI technology, frameless cockpit canopy, continuous curvature, RAM coating, etc.

The puzzlement is: Why didn't Sukhoi adhere to the design elements pioneered by the U.S. F-22 and followed by China's J-20? The French also adhered to an almost-serpentine air-inlet design. It appears that Sukhoi was lazy and didn't bother to put too much effort into designing a stealthy T-50.

PAK-FA / T-50 - a knol by Vijainder K Thakur

"Not so LO [low observable] Features [for Russian T-50]

1. Circular exhaust.
2. Infrared-search-and-track ball on the nose.
3. Canopy frame,
4. Gaps around the inlets.
5. Various unshielded intakes and grilles.
6. Limited use of composites for now. Eventually, 40% of the aircraft will be made using composites.
7. Many surface intersections and flight-test probes that increase the radar signature."

----------

It is my opinion that the French Rafale is far stealthier than the current Russian T-50. The French did a much better job of hiding their engine fan blades. Though the Rafale does not rise to the level of stealthiness of the F-22 or J-20, your eyes can see the obvious difference between the Rafale and the T-50.

VVufS.gif

French Rafale air intake. The designers did a good job in hiding most of the engine fan blades, but I can still see a portion of the exposed fan blades.

qBoKk.jpg

Russian T-50 air intake with fully-exposed engine fan blades

----------

Spark, stop posting cartoons. Try posting real pictures (see above).
 
.
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.
bro, ignore them :azn:
enjoy j20 CG:cheers:

27_175473_6d9f29679436d38.jpg
 
. . .
. .
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.
Yes...Let us take a look at APA's analysis...

What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate

1- 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;
Why not? In radar detection, what Richard Aboulafia said is truth by the laws of physics: that the greater the amount of reflection and edge diffraction generators, the greater the odds of detection. APA's physical optics simulation WAS NOT even based upon a controlled photographic record in order to ascertain precise physical characteristics of reflectors and edge diffraction generators but upon ad-hoc imprecise photographs where environmental conditions such as humidity can create erroneous physical dimensions perceptions. Item 1 alone is enough to disqualify this analysis. Its saving grace is that the authors were honest enough to call it a 'Preliminary Assessment'.

2- The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from surface travelling wave effects. In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by edge treatments, lossy surface coatings, gap treatments, and panel serrations;
This is absurd. The reason why RCS control measures moved away from angled facetings is to exploit surface traveling wave properties. The smoother the surface and the longer its electrical path, meaning real estate wise, the longer the surface wave has to travel and that travel will continue to bleed off minute amount of radiation. At the end, the hope is that there is insufficient edge diffraction available for detection. Failure to model surface wave is a serious error.

3- The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from the AESA bay in the passband of a bandpass radome, due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same, the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design much effort will be expended in suppressing passband RCS contributions;
Absence of data regarding radome construction? Fair enough, but radome internal cavity is a major RCS contributor.

4- The simulator at this time does not model backscatter from the engine inlet tunnels or engine exhaust tailpipes, due to the absence of any data on the intended design of same. In the forward and aft hemispheres these can be dominant scattering sources where specular contributions are low. The magnitude of these RCS contributions is reduced by suppressing these RCS contributions with absorbers, and in the case of inlet tunnels, by introducing a serpentine geometry to increase the number of bounces;
More missing data.

5- The simulator at this time does not model structural mode RCS contributions from antenna and EO apertures, panel joins, panel and door gaps, fasteners and other minor contributors; although the resulting error will be mitigated by the reality that in a mature production design these RCS contributions are reduced by RCS reduction treatments.
These are not minor contributors.

6- The PO computational algorithm performs most accurately at broadside or near normal angles of incidence, with decreasing accuracy at increasingly shallow angles of incidence, reflecting the limitions of PO modelling. The simulator does not implement the Mitzner/Ufimtsev corrections for edge currents. While a number of test runs with basic shapes showed good agreement between the PO simulation and backscatter peaks in third party test sample measurements, even at incidence angles below 10°, characteristically PO will underestimate backscatter in nulls. This limitation must be considered when assessing results for the nose and tail aspects, where most specular RCS contributions arise at very shallow angles39.
What the highlighted mean is that the PO computation that APA performed was best when the radar signal angle of arrival or incident is 'normal' or perpendicular. And the PO simulation's accuracy decreases as that angle of incident deviate from perpendicular. What are the odds of a radar constantly perpendicular to a flying aircraft? None.

How can anyone take these modeling flaws to be exactly representative of the J-20's radar cross section (RCS)? The authors basically HOPE that production models will compensate for their analysis's shortcomings.

Even the authors themselves acknowledged the flaws...

Importantly, even were the simulator capable of modelling shallow angle specular and non-specular RCS contributors, the PLA would not permit sufficiently detailed disclosures on the RCS reduction treatments applied to the airframe design, as a result of which reasonable assumed parameters would have to be applied instead of actual values.
Basically...They admitted that since the PLA would not allow up close and personal physical measurements, the bulk of their report should be taken with a gigantic boulder of salt.

This is best for the gullibles' consumption and would not even pass vetting for a genuine peer review.
 
.
Well you're about to see the world's first operational one in a few years then. Gotta travel more.
You were commenting about US aircrafts. Now show me a DEPLOYED American fighter with canards. So instead of telling I should travel more, may be it should be YOU who should take your own advice. Better yet, enlist for a few years and open your eyes about a subject you now know zilch about.
 
.
You were commenting about US aircrafts. Now show me a DEPLOYED American fighter with canards. So instead of telling I should travel more, may be it should be YOU who should take your own advice. Better yet, enlist for a few years and open your eyes about a subject you now know zilch about.
Are you denying that United States tested and proposed designs with canards? If they were incompatible with low observable design, would they have been proposed? It seems that just because United States did not put an operational one into service, that precludes others from doing the same.

PLAAF had expressed satisfaction with J-20's design when tested in an anechoic chamber, and you're here telling me otherwise? Hah.
 
.
Yes...Let us take a look at APA's analysis...


Why not? In radar detection, what Richard Aboulafia said is truth by the laws of physics: that the greater the amount of reflection and edge diffraction generators, the greater the odds of detection. APA's physical optics simulation WAS NOT even based upon a controlled photographic record in order to ascertain precise physical characteristics of reflectors and edge diffraction generators but upon ad-hoc imprecise photographs where environmental conditions such as humidity can create erroneous physical dimensions perceptions. Item 1 alone is enough to disqualify this analysis. Its saving grace is that the authors were honest enough to call it a 'Preliminary Assessment'.


This is absurd. The reason why RCS control measures moved away from angled facetings is to exploit surface traveling wave properties. The smoother the surface and the longer its electrical path, meaning real estate wise, the longer the surface wave has to travel and that travel will continue to bleed off minute amount of radiation. At the end, the hope is that there is insufficient edge diffraction available for detection. Failure to model surface wave is a serious error.


Absence of data regarding radome construction? Fair enough, but radome internal cavity is a major RCS contributor.


More missing data.


These are not minor contributors.


What the highlighted mean is that the PO computation that APA performed was best when the radar signal angle of arrival or incident is 'normal' or perpendicular. And the PO simulation's accuracy decreases as that angle of incident deviate from perpendicular. What are the odds of a radar constantly perpendicular to a flying aircraft? None.

How can anyone take these modeling flaws to be exactly representative of the J-20's radar cross section (RCS)? The authors basically HOPE that production models will compensate for their analysis's shortcomings.

Even the authors themselves acknowledged the flaws...


Basically...They admitted that since the PLA would not allow up close and personal physical measurements, the bulk of their report should be taken with a gigantic boulder of salt.

This is best for the gullibles' consumption and would not even pass vetting for a genuine peer review.

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. If you want to claim otherwise, show us your credentials and your published works. Otherwise, stop blabbering endlessly.

----------

Name Peter Anthony Goon

Date and Place of Birth 1953, Melbourne, Australia

Nationality Australian

Principal Qualifications BEng (Mechanical) - Qld Institute of Technology 1975

Post graduate Aeronautical Engineering and Officer training in the RAAF

Graduate US Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS Class 80), Flight Test Engineer Course - 1981

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Authorised Person under CARs 35/36

Areas of Expertise


Flight Test Engineering; Test and Evaluation (T&E); Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V); Aeronautical Engineering System Design; Senior Project Management; Risk Analysis; Air Power and Defence Capability Systems Analysis; Australian Defence Industry


Preferred Industry Roles


Consultant; Team (IPT) Leader; Integration and Test; Technical Specialist in Flight Test and Certification; T&E; Independent Analyst


Skills/Experience:

Over 27 years experience in aeronautical engineering design, aircraft maintenance and aircraft operations in both the military and civil aviation environments. Has extensive industry network.
22 years experience in Flight Test and related disciplines. Has well developed risk analysis skills.
22 years experience in the application of Test and Evaluation (T&E) principles, including Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V), Risk Planning and Treatment, DT&E, AT&E, OT&E, Type and Supplemental Type Certification, and Compliance & Conformity Assurance and Auditing.
14 years experience in the senior management of commercial activities. Focused strategic planner.
18 years experience in Company Directorships with over 12 years in the position of Managing Director. Strong understanding and appreciation of corporate governance issues and methodologies.
17 years experience as a CASA designated CAR 35/36 Authorised Person for Flight Test (performance, handling qualities, and systems) and structural, electrical and systems design with associated delegated approvals. Fully conversant with national and international aerospace regulatory environments and standards.
Inventor of a number of Patented, Supplemental Type Certificated and Registered designs. A discerning entrepreneur with a strategic approach to business process innovation and leveraging applied technologies to the benefit of his clients.
Author, Co-author and/or Approving Authority of over 300 Technical Reports and Papers, principally on aerospace systems and flight test/T&E projects. Effective oral and written communicator.
Over 500 hours aeronautical experience, mainly on flight test activities, in a variety of military and civil aircraft, including T-38 Talon (27 hrs), TA-4J Skyhawk (31 hrs), T-2C Buckeye (43 hrs), S-3 Viking (16 hrs), P-3B/C Orion (9 hrs), AH-1 Cobra (6 hrs), OH-58 Kiowa/JetRanger (23 hrs), UH-1B Iroquois, F-111C, MB-326H Macchi (75 hrs), Mirage IIID, Nomad, CT-4B Trainer (42 hrs), CT-4E Enhanced Flight Screener (27 hrs), C-441 Conquest, C-404 Titan, Cessna-340A (33 hrs), C-210 Centurion, C-172 Skyhawk, Beech B-200 Super King Air, Fokker F-27 Research Fokker Friendship.



Background/History:
2002 – Present - Service in the National Interest

1990 – 2005 AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TEST SERVICES – Managing Director/Director

Appointed Managing Director in November 1990 with charter to develop the company as a profitable enterprise through the provision of flight test, Test and Evaluation (T&E), and innovative engineering design related services and products of high quality and acknowledged value in the market place. Instrumental in the promotion and application of test and evaluation principles within the company's activities. Implemented Capability Maturity Model (CMM)[CMU] and Integrated Product Team (IPT) structures and practices in the company. Active in the areas of aeronautical engineering design and analysis as well as flight test engineering under AFTS Design & Engineering Procedures Manuals. Managed aircraft operations under the company's Air Operators Certificate. AFTS successfully completed a significant number of aircraft flight test, modification and certification projects under Peter's managing directorship. These included tasks on the C-130H & J, B-707 and Blackhawk helicopter aircraft plus a number of P-3C related projects, such as development of the High Capacity Cargo Pannier and prototyping of the ASH-33 DMTS Modification. Peter was one of the principal proponents in the formation of the Defence Teaming Centre, Inc. (DTC), author of the DTC Code to Ethics and Conduct, and held the position of DTC Deputy Chairman from 1996 through to 1999.

Activities and experience relevant to aeronautical design and aviation matters include:

17 years experience as a CASA designated CAR 35/36 Authorised Person for structural, electrical and systems design, and Flight Test (performance, handling qualities, and systems) with associated delegated approvals. Fully conversant with national and international aerospace regulatory environments and standards.
Author, Co-author and/or Approving Authority of over 300 Technical Reports and Papers, principally on aerospace systems and flight test/T&E projects. Effective oral and written communicator.
AFTS has satisfactorily completed over 1,500 projects, the bulk relating to aeronautical design and aviation matters. Projects included the development of repairs/modifications to address ageing aircraft issues through to the design, development, installation, integration and certification of aircraft modifications, defined as ‘Major’ by the CASA.
Author of Unsolicited Innovative Proposal from Industry entitled “Project Tango Charlie” dated January 2000 for evolving the DHC4 Caribou aircraft through a COTS technology insertion program with inherent cost/capability improvements/savings in excess of AUD$1b.
Co-author of the innovative, cost effective family of risk mitigation strategies and the extant IV&V model for the NACC Project entitled “The Evolved F-111”, circa 2001.
Contributor to the ANAO Performance Audit titled “Test and Evaluation of Major Defence Equipment Acquisitions”, Audit Report No 30 of 2002.
Contributor on T&E and related matters to the Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into “Materiel Acquisition and Management in the DMO” of 2002.
Contributor to the Kinnaird Procurement Review 2003 with a primary focus on Defence Capability Systems Life Cycle Management and the importance of capability requirements analysis, operational concept development, functional and performance specification, and the role of Test & Evaluation with various models and recommendations.
Provided Kinnaird Procurement Review Team with results of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) on ‘What Ails Defence Today’ and recommendations on T&E models for Defence.
Co-author of the forensic analysis, written for the Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled “Review of Defence Annual Report 2002-03: Analysis of Department of Defence Responses” dated 26 Jan 04, and related Parliamentary submissions.
Co-founder of Air Power Australia think tank – Air Power Australia - Home Page

1986 – 1990 AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TEST SERVICES – Manager, Engineering Services Division (ESD)

Managed contracts for consulting engineering services to industry and also provided engineering support for company internal activities. Managed and mentored engineering activities which ranged from development of repairs for general aviation aircraft through to major systems development, primarily in, but not limited to, the aviation field. Established AFTS Resource Attribution System and Documentation Filing and Reporting System, along with AFTS Design Management System. Responsible for obtaining civil aviation regulatory approvals for company; establishing company's engineering design and T&E philosophy and principles; and achievement of third party accreditation of AS/NZS ISO 9001:1994 Quality System.

During this time, the company submitted a number of Innovative Proposals from Industry (solicited and unsolicited), including the Commercialisation of the Woomera Instrumented Range dated 1989, the core technical and commercial tenets of which have since been applied overseas.

1982 – 1986 AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT UNIT (ARDU) – Project Manager/ OIC Performance and Handling

Appointed Project Engineer responsible for technical management of the design, development, installation and integration of instrumentation into an F-111C aircraft for flight test purposes. In 1983, appointed Officer in Charge of Performance and Handling Flight in addition to the F-111C engineering position. Appointed Project Manager for TS1650 – Instrumentation of F-111C Aircraft Project in late 1983. Co-implementor of real time flight test methodologies and data processing. Inaugural Real Time Flight Test Director of Telemetry Ground Station.
 
.
Are you denying that United States tested and proposed designs with canards? If they were incompatible with low observable design, would they have been proposed? It seems that just because United States did not put an operational one into service, that precludes others from doing the same.
I guess the word 'deployed' must be very difficult to understand. And no, just because the US does not deploy such a design, that does not mean others could not. But it does begs the question of why the US does not.

PLAAF had expressed satisfaction with J-20's design when tested in an anechoic chamber, and you're here telling me otherwise? Hah.
Does that mean the PLAAF's expectations were the same for US?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom