Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[siegecrossbow]

Second J-20 prototype is indeed out. Look at the designation:

 

[pzkilo]

Second J-20 prototype is indeed out. Look at the designation:

Awesome~~~~

 

[antonius123]

We arn't the ones who start it. It's PHDs with degrees in Chinese physics that start all of the trash talking. I usually never post anything in this thread unless someone claims something provocative and there is no shortage of Chinese PHDs that are itching for a fight.

Either your physics or math understanding is pathetic.

You dont even understand the difference between curve and sphere and cylinder;
You also do not have clue about obtuse and reflect angle, etc.

You don't either have clue about how framed glass is formed

 

[antonius123]

Then why not copy the F-22's layout?

Unless...The J-20 is not a '5th generation' design.

In RCS control, the major flight control elements are the first targets for contributorship reduction. In looking at the comparison above, the J-20 have one more radiator than the Rafale in having twin vertical stabilators. However, the Rafale's single vertical stab produces two corner reflectors while the J-20's twin vertical stabs produces no 90 deg corners. Similarly shaped and sized complex bodies will produce similar clusters of discrete radiators.

Like this...

The counter-argument would be: Why is the F-117, which look nothing like the B-2, have supposedly similar RCS to the B-2, and vice versa?

It is a legitimate argument and the appropriate response is that size have a direct effect on RCS as well as those discrete structures on a complex body. When Northrop designed the B-2, they did not referenced the F-117. Instead, they went back to its predecessor -- the YB-49. Northrop already knew of the flying wing's naturally low RCS and what stopped the YB-49 back then was the limits on flight control technology because the flying wing design was inherently more demanding to fly.

But for the F-117, Lockheed had nothing to referenced. No historical precedence for what they wanted to create. Lockheed had to start from scratch as far as complex bodies goes. The result is that the F-117 look nothing like anything in aviation history -- 100 yrs of it -- and unto today. What Lockheed did with the F-117 was pure understated genius. Grossly understated. And far more in terms of efforts than what CAC have done with the J-20.

So if the Rafale is not to be emulated, and you are using the word 'emulated' wrongly anyway, then why does the J-20 look so similar to the Rafale and the MIG 1.44?

The F-22 look nothing like the F-15. After the B-2 experience, it became obvious to the top military aviation companies that the demands of low radar observability would force them to discard many -- if not most -- of conventional wisdom regarding aircraft design. The F-22 is physically larger than the F-15. The F-22's reference was the F-117, not the F-15, when it comes to radar behaviors. Northrop's YF-23 also had nothing in common with the F-15 and also referenced the F-117 regarding radar behaviors.

And yet, the J-20 have striking physical similarities with the Rafale and the MIG 1.44 when it is boldly declared that the Rafale is not to be 'emulated'.

Your argumentation is SILLY.

Instead talking about the continuous curvature on fuselage shaping, you are arguing J-20's stealth performance on Wing Configuration.

This is another evidence about how clueless you are about Stealth. By your logic B-2, F-117 and F-35 is not really stealth since the wing configuration is not emulating that of F-22.

As the matter of fact J-20's shaping is emulating F-22 very much compared to PAKFA.

Internal carriage, continuous curvature of Fuselage, flat bottom fuselage, clean surface, hidden fan blade, etc is the base you should refer to judge whether the aircraft falls into Stealth category or not, instead of wing configuration.

There is no rule to avoid delta wing for being stealth.

I notice martian and many people do not care about your argument, since most of your argument is silly and baseless, just a bias claim.

 

[gambit]

The great Gambit declares that the F-22 looks nothing like the F-15, but the J-20 looks like Rafale and Mig 1.44.

We are all blind except gambit! Heil gambit!

Fine...Perhaps 'look nothing' was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. Still...

Carlo Kopp interviews F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz

If the F-15 was the F-22's parent, Metz would have mentioned it.

Take note of Metz's comment on the history of 'stealth' evolution...

...evolution from the first generation stealth aircraft represented by the SR-71 and A-12. Second generation stealth as evidenced by the F-117 had yet to allow aerodynamic efficiency to co-exist with stealth. Only with the third generation of stealth inherent in the B-2 bomber were we able to achieve efficient aerodynamic shapes with a low radar signature.

The F-15's layout was proven to the most efficient for what it was designed to be. At best, it was a combination of the F-15, F-117, and the B-2 that gave US the F-22. Not the F-15 alone. Many analysts even included the YF-12A, the cousin of the SR-71, as a member of the F-22's history.

But you can take LM's word for it...

 

[gambit]

Either your physics or math understanding is pathetic.

You dont even understand the difference between curve and sphere and cylinder;
You also do not have clue about obtuse and reflect angle, etc.

You don't either have clue about how framed glass is formed

O, Believer of 'Chinese physics'...

IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page

When a high-frequency electromagnetic wave strikes a smooth curved object at grazing incidence on the convex side, surface ray fields are excited. The surface ray propagates along the surface in a manner determined by the usual differential equations for rays on a surface. Therefore, in a homogeneous medium it is an arc of a geodesic path on the surface. The surface ray propagating on the convex smooth surface known as creeping wave sheds a diffracted ray, satisfying the law of surface diffraction at every point on the surface. All properties of surface diffracted rays follow from generalized Fermet's principle for surface diffraction. Smooth and convex surfaces such as the sphere and the infinite cylinder have been considered by Keller and Levy and surface diffraction coefficients and attenuation constants were obtained.

Did you know that the above paper made you look like a fool regarding spheres, cylinders, and curvatures? You do not understand? We feel sorry for you, just a little bit, anyway...

 

[ptldM3]

Either your physics or math understanding is pathetic.

You dont even understand the difference between curve and sphere and cylinder;
You also do not have clue about obtuse and reflect angle, etc.

You don't either have clue about how framed glass is formed

Yes you are right i don’t know what a curve, sphere and cylinder is. I was born yesterday. The problem is not me but you and your piss poor reading comprehension.


And I don’t know how framed glass is formed or perhaps that you are a liar in denial? The entire argument was you claiming the pak-fa’s ‘frame’ overlaps the canopy. You had no proof to back that claim, even when I posted high resolutions photographs of the canopy you still were in denial claiming that there is an overlap when high resolutions pictures busted your claim. Like I said a recessed canopy must be a new concept for you.


And an FYI even F-22 and J-20 have a ‘metal strip’ in the canopies, except this strip is located beneath the canopy and is especially made to be strong because it locks the canopies into place. So where do you see an overlap in the F-22 ‘metal frame’? And where do you see an over lap in the pa-fa’s frame? The simple question is that you don’t.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Fine...Perhaps 'look nothing' was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. Still...

IS THAT SO THEN CHECK THIS OUT


This the French Wind Tunnel model of the Rafale

compared to the model tested by China in their Wind Tunnel.

 

[conworldus]

That's a CCTV news reporting about the Rafale. They are the same. You fail

IS THAT SO THEN CHECK THIS OUT


This the French Wind Tunnel model of the Rafale

compared to the model tested by China in their Wind Tunnel.

 

[gambit]

That's a CCTV news reporting about the Rafale. They are the same. You fail

Amazon.com: Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed (9780316743006): Ben R. Rich, Leo Janos: Books

Ben Rich was very open about how much Lockheed poached components and even entire systems from the F-15, F-16, and F-18 to build the prototypes of their 'stealth' aircrafts. Unashamedly. And yet not once did he stated that the F-15 had any significant contributorship to the development of his 'stealth' aircrafts other than to be a parts donor.

So where did the J-20 came from? Looks like the 1.44 and the Rafale coupled and whelped the J-20.

It is so funny that if a Chinese make a claim about the J-20 based upon pure sight and a healthy dose of imagination, it is quickly applauded and the rest of the Chinese crowd tripped over each other to 'Thank' him for a 'useful' post. And yet when an American do the same but not to the Chinese's liking...The kitty claws came out...

 

[antonius123]

O, Believer of 'Chinese physics'...

IEEE Xplore - Abstract Page

Did you know that the above paper made you look like a fool regarding spheres, cylinders, and curvatures? You do not understand? We feel sorry for you, just a little bit, anyway...

I know exactly what the article is saying about; in fact I suspect you have no clue regarding the article you quoted above.
You obviously just drag article arbitrarily without understanding the relevance with the topic discussed here

 

[gambit]

I know exactly what the article is saying about; in fact I suspect you have no clue regarding the article you quoted above.
You obviously just drag article arbitrarily without understanding the relevance with the topic discussed here

I doubt that. You did not even know 'dB' is used in EM measurement. So it is the readers who are laughing at your fumblings and mublings.

 

[antonius123]

Yes you are right i don’t know what a curve, sphere and cylinder is. I was born yesterday. The problem is not me but you and your piss poor reading comprehension.


And I don’t know how framed glass is formed or perhaps that you are a liar in denial? The entire argument was you claiming the pak-fa’s ‘frame’ overlaps the canopy. You had no proof to back that claim, even when I posted high resolutions photographs of the canopy you still were in denial claiming that there is an overlap when high resolutions pictures busted your claim. Like I said a recessed canopy must be a new concept for you.

Thats why you dont know what you are claiming when you said the metal frame is flush with the glass, as you dont know what the frame on the glass is for and how it is formed on the glass.

I cannot drag evidence from shukhoi, but if you understand and by the logic it should be formed by wrapping the edge of the glass as i explained to you. Technically this is the most feasible way to create the frame in purpose to enforce the glass structure.

Maybe Shukhoi/Rusia has better way to create frame by very super strong glue that guarantee it will give the same performance as the current way (wrapping the edge of the glass), therefore it is flush with the glass; but you have to bring the evidence; otherwise the frame should be the same with those on other canopy of planes.

And an FYI even F-22 and J-20 have a ‘metal strip’ in the canopies, except this strip is located beneath the canopy and is especially made to be strong because it locks the canopies into place. So where do you see an overlap in the F-22 ‘metal frame’? And where do you see an over lap in the pa-fa’s frame? The simple question is that you don’t.

Since it is located beneath it is not exposed to ground radar; even if exposed the detrimental is still relatively small compared to the metal frame canopy.

I doubt that. You did not even know 'dB' is used in EM measurement. So it is the readers who are laughing at your fumblings and mublings.

That is only your baseless accusation; there is no evidence except your suspicion.

By fact there are countless of your misconception and clueless that have been proved in these 2 threads

 

[antonius123]

By gambit logic, F-15 Eagle should be much more stealthy than Rafale/Eurofighter Typhoon/J-20, as F-15 wing configuration is not delta wing, therefore much closer to F-22's wing configuration than that of Rafale/Eurofighter/J-20

 

[SinoChallenger]

So where did the J-20 came from? Looks like the 1.44 and the Rafale coupled and whelped the J-20.

It is so funny that if a Chinese make a claim about the J-20 based upon pure sight and a healthy dose of imagination, it is quickly applauded and the rest of the Chinese crowd tripped over each other to 'Thank' him for a 'useful' post. And yet when an American do the same but not to the Chinese's liking...The kitty claws came out...

LOL at the USAF enlisted maintenance worker comparing J-20 to non-existent Mig 1.44 and external weapons carriage, single vertical stabilizer Rafale. Ironically ignoring the 4th generation aircraft J-20 really evolved from -- the J-10 from the same Chengdu Aircraft Company!

This Western-worshipping Vietnamese has finally become indian. Congratulations gambit, jai hind!

I know exactly what the article is saying about; in fact I suspect you have no clue regarding the article you quoted above.
You obviously just drag article arbitrarily without understanding the relevance with the topic discussed here

That enlisted maintenance worker who talks like he's a chief aircraft designer is a joke. He just copies and pastes irrelevant excerpts from engineering texts. I guess that's what you spew when you are a Sinophobic Vietnamese-American jealous of the J-20.