Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[S10]

You think I care if you want to make the Russians look bad for copying ?

The MIG-25 was a copy from the North American A-5 Vigilante, pal. Even the Soviets admitted it. You guys ignorantly believes that the F-15 was a copy and response to the MIG-25.

When it comes to technical issues, especially aviation, you PDF Chinese got nothing to go by.

The design lineage of J-20 is clear as day, and yet you insist it's based off of Mig 1.44 despite the J-9VI program predating it by over a decade. Delta canard wing configuration is the staple design from Chengdu Aircraft Corporation since the late 1970's.

So let me ask you again, is Mig 1.44 a copy of J-9? Based on evidence do you suggest J-20 is copying off of Mig 1.44 other than your own mouth?

 

[gambit]

The design lineage of J-20 is clear as day, and yet you insist it's based off of Mig 1.44 despite the J-9VI program predating it by over a decade. Delta canard wing configuration is the staple design from Chengdu Aircraft Corporation since the late 1970's.

So let me ask you again, is Mig 1.44 a copy of J-9? Based on evidence do you suggest J-20 is copying off of Mig 1.44 other than your own mouth?

Call it anything you want, buddy. I am not interested in converting you guys.

 

[The SC]

This is where you and the Chinese cohort are wrong about the proper context of 'copy'.

It is axiomatic among programmers that everyone literally copy from each other, and I am talking about wholesale sections of codes via the copy/paste utility. In my industry -- semiconductor -- companies routinely buy finished products from their competitors and physically dissect the products to see if there are any components whose final form violated patents. COMPONENTS, not the final larger product.

People can deny, until their faces are blue, that the J-20 did not came from the MIG 1.44 project. They will point out the surface physical differences as 'proof' that there were no copying. But they are wrong in the eyes of aviation professionals. China did not have a native aviation industry in the mold of how a truly indigenous industry come about. The aircraft came to China in finished form and that finished form came from efforts like the Wright Flyer and later evolution. In other words, China never had her own version of the Wright Flyer.

That is NOT a point to ridicule China. No country invents everything. Every country copied, either cooperatively or non.

The fact that China leaped from importing her combat fighters to the J-20 is immediately suspect, especially when the final form is strikingly familiar. Even the Iranians are not calling their modified F-5s something new. The J-20 took the 1.44's final form and refined it to meet modern day's combat necessities. Instead of a mechanical flight control system, the J-20 have fly-by-wire avionics, a concept that is not native to China. If we can examine the J-20 the way the US examined the MIG-25 back in 1976, there will be a long list of components that are either literally copied in forms or at least in concepts. To copy and adapt are themselves impressive accomplishments.

You forgot the most impressive accomplishment: to innovate..

 

[Place Of Space]

This is where you and the Chinese cohort are wrong about the proper context of 'copy'.

It is axiomatic among programmers that everyone literally copy from each other, and I am talking about wholesale sections of codes via the copy/paste utility. In my industry -- semiconductor -- companies routinely buy finished products from their competitors and physically dissect the products to see if there are any components whose final form violated patents. COMPONENTS, not the final larger product.

People can deny, until their faces are blue, that the J-20 did not came from the MIG 1.44 project. They will point out the surface physical differences as 'proof' that there were no copying. But they are wrong in the eyes of aviation professionals. China did not have a native aviation industry in the mold of how a truly indigenous industry come about. The aircraft came to China in finished form and that finished form came from efforts like the Wright Flyer and later evolution. In other words, China never had her own version of the Wright Flyer.

That is NOT a point to ridicule China. No country invents everything. Every country copied, either cooperatively or non.

The fact that China leaped from importing her combat fighters to the J-20 is immediately suspect, especially when the final form is strikingly familiar. Even the Iranians are not calling their modified F-5s something new. The J-20 took the 1.44's final form and refined it to meet modern day's combat necessities. Instead of a mechanical flight control system, the J-20 have fly-by-wire avionics, a concept that is not native to China. If we can examine the J-20 the way the US examined the MIG-25 back in 1976, there will be a long list of components that are either literally copied in forms or at least in concepts. To copy and adapt are themselves impressive accomplishments.

Copy others' weapons and probe enemy's intelligence is always a part of war. The only goal is winning.

 

[The SC]

You think I care if you want to make the Russians look bad for copying ?

The MIG-25 was a copy from the North American A-5 Vigilante, pal. Even the Soviets admitted it. You guys ignorantly believes that the F-15 was a copy and response to the MIG-25.

When it comes to technical issues, especially aviation, you PDF Chinese got nothing to go by.

What about the Stealth B2, isn't it a copy of the German Horton? and the US missiles not a copy of V1 and V2 of German origin..?

 

[S10]

Call it anything you want, buddy. I am not interested in converting you guys.

So you have nothing to back it up? Good to know.

 

[gambit]

So you have nothing to back it up? Good to know.

Neither do you. And when it comes to military related issues, having nothing is typical for you guys. You have no relevant technical experience and no military experience. That is good to know.

What about the Stealth B2, isn't it a copy of the German Horton? and the US missiles not a copy of V1 and V2 of German origin..?

No, the B-2 is not a copy of the Horton.

The flying wing design was well known long before WW II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing

The flying wing configuration was studied extensively in the 1930s and 1940s, notably by Jack Northrop and Cheston L. Eshelman in the United States, and Alexander Lippisch and the Horten brothers in Germany.

In fact, real facts, not the kind make up by the PDF Chinese crew, the flying wing itself was studied as far back as 1910 by Hugo Junkers.

The flying wing design as a weapon was in parallel development in the US and Nazi Germany.

The flying wing as a low radar observable platform was not seriously considered, not even by the Horton brothers even though they made attempts to make their designs less vulnerable to radars. The Hortons used the flying wing design more for long range than for radar evasion.

 

[The SC]

Neither do you. And when it comes to military related issues, having nothing is typical for you guys. You have no relevant technical experience and no military experience. That is good to know.


No, the B-2 is not a copy of the Horton.

The flying wing design was well known long before WW II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing

In fact, real facts, not the kind make up by the PDF Chinese crew, the flying wing itself was studied as far back as 1910 by Hugo Junkers.

The flying wing design as a weapon was in parallel development in the US and Nazi Germany.

The flying wing as a low radar observable platform was not seriously considered, not even by the Horton brothers even though they made attempts to make their designs less vulnerable to radars. The Hortons used the flying wing design more for long range than for radar evasion.

We all know that scientific research on the same subject(s)_Stealth design in this instance_ goes on in different parts of the world in parallel, That is why this talk of copying makes no sense.. it is more like a race in R&D than anything else..

 

[Zhu Rong Zheng Yang]

Please do not take this as Personal Attack ... ...
IMHO, ... ...

Gambit, you are Losing Credibility very Quickly by the day

@gambit

I used to have some respect towards you.
I personally think -- on some area, you are quite knowledgeable.
I thought -- You are NOT one of those majority Dumb and Dimwitted americans white Anglo Saxon americans.
Later, I realize that maybe is because -- you are a minority american.

Then, you wrote the Backwardly Disgraceful Thinking against the Supercomputer
as Ultimate Force Multipliers for any nation STEM prowess and RnD.

Immediately whatever tiny respect that I have about you were flushed to the sewage.
My suggestion is please refrain from posting in any sectors that will show you to be as
Dumb and Dimwitted as those majority white Anglo Saxon americans ( who can NOT do a Simple basic Math ).



Here are some Required Reading to Update your knowledge if you have the gut to compete with us in posting Cutting Edge discoveries.

Link:
https://defence.pk/threads/asean-br...mbodia-for-support.440959/page-6#post-8504757

 

[footmarks]

Impressive feat if it is ready even by 2019, i would say. Respect for the scientists who are working on such and other high tech projects, anywhere in the world. While we can fight and troll, those are the one who put in hard work to give us boasting powers.

 

[gambit]

You made the accusation, so the onus is on you to prove your case. Claiming "I have experience" doesn't cut it. I admit you have much more experience in being an idiot than I could ever dream of.

It is not just I who made the accusation, son. There are plenty of aviation specialists who made the same. With my experience, I chose to ally myself with them. You are asking for, basically, an impossible task. We all know it is impossible because China is not going to release any information about the J-20. This leave you to demand that we all accept your position as default. That is not going to happen. Just as we do not have any concrete proof that the J-20 came from the MIG, neither do you have any proof to support the contrary. You may say that in the end, it is just opinion, but also in that same end, not all opinions are equal. Some have more weight than others. Yours, for now, just weight as much as a soap bubble.

 

[gambit]

We all know that scientific research on the same subject(s)_Stealth design in this instance_ goes on in different parts of the world in parallel, That is why this talk of copying makes no sense.. it is more like a race in R&D than anything else..

No, it was not. Parallel R/D means competitors starts with roughly the same information.

The US started it and we are at least one decade ahead of everyone else. With the F-117, we sort of 'gave' our competitors a considerable assist. Not in the sense that we invited them to observe our research, but in the sense that we showed the research paid off in tangible ways and those ways -- combat -- they never had to risk. They knew, at no cost to them...

- That the angled faceting technique worked and worked well,

- That the US dropped that technique in favor of curvatures due to advances in computing power to calculate the much more complex behaviors of waves on curvatures,

- That aerodynamics efficiency does not have to be reduced to work successfully with 'stealth'.

- That the use of absorber composites do not have to be comprehensive on the 'stealth' body,

And

- That there are tactically useful levels of radar returns from the 'stealth' body that require less rigors in design, thereby reducing development cost.

No one, from the Soviets to China to any major power, that have their own in-house aviation program spent a single pound, yuan, ruble, franc, or deutsche mark to find out those things. We did it all and in spectacular ways.

That did not happened with the Horten flying wing design. The 229 never made it into production, let alone combat. It was barely into its flight testing regime. The Hortens may have infused their design with iron oxide compounds, like the ones used on submarine snorkels and periscopes, to try to reduce the 299's vulnerability to radar, but current information does not support the speculation that the 229 was actually subjected to any significant open radar testing. In other words, the world knew nothing of the 299 until the end of WW II.

The flying wing was already common knowledge and exploration as a viable aircraft, not just a scientific study, was truly in parallel. So no one copied from anyone else at that time.

Like it or not, the charge that the J-20 came from the MIG 1.44 is a serious one.

 

[The SC]

No, it was not. Parallel R/D means competitors starts with roughly the same information.

The US started it and we are at least one decade ahead of everyone else. With the F-117, we sort of 'gave' our competitors a considerable assist. Not in the sense that we invited them to observe our research, but in the sense that we showed the research paid off in tangible ways and those ways -- combat -- they never had to risk. They knew, at no cost to them...

- That the angled faceting technique worked and worked well,

- That the US dropped that technique in favor of curvatures due to advances in computing power to calculate the much more complex behaviors of waves on curvatures,

- That aerodynamics efficiency does not have to be reduced to work successfully with 'stealth'.

- That the use of absorber composites do not have to be comprehensive on the 'stealth' body,

And

- That there are tactically useful levels of radar returns from the 'stealth' body that require less rigors in design, thereby reducing development cost.

No one, from the Soviets to China to any major power, that have their own in-house aviation program spent a single pound, yuan, ruble, franc, or deutsche mark to find out those things. We did it all and in spectacular ways.

That did not happened with the Horten flying wing design. The 229 never made it into production, let alone combat. It was barely into its flight testing regime. The Hortens may have infused their design with iron oxide compounds, like the ones used on submarine snorkels and periscopes, to try to reduce the 299's vulnerability to radar, but current information does not support the speculation that the 229 was actually subjected to any significant open radar testing. In other words, the world knew nothing of the 299 until the end of WW II.

The flying wing was already common knowledge and exploration as a viable aircraft, not just a scientific study, was truly in parallel. So no one copied from anyone else at that time.

Like it or not, the charge that the J-20 came from the MIG 1.44 is a serious one.

I understand your point, but first of all maybe you are confusing the J-10 with the J-20, since if there is any resemblance in design with the Mig 1.44, one can see in the J-10 ..second all that sigma of tech you are talking about was-or most of it- derived from advances in space, physics, chemistry and aeronautics sciences, thirdly the main body of the Horton 229 was made of Wood, so it did not reflect radar waves, only the engines did, so it was Stealth by all means..The issue of the engines radiation still exists today in the 5th generation fighters..

 

[gambit]

I understand your point, but first of all maybe you are confusing the J-10 with the J-20, since if there is any resemblance in design with the Mig 1.44, one can see in the J-10 ..second all that sigma of tech you are talking about was-or most of it- derived from advances in space, physics, chemistry and aeronautics sciences, thirdly the main body of the Horton 229 was made of Wood, so it did not reflect radar waves, only the engines did, so it was Stealth by all means..The issue of the engines radiation still exists today in the 5th generation fighters..

Yes, I am often confused between my F-16 and the B-52.

As for the Horten 229, they flying wing was naturally lower in EM observability to start, but there was no indicator that the Horten brothers used that in designing the 229. Yours is a failure in logical thought processes.

 

[The SC]

Yes, I am often confused between my F-16 and the B-52.

As for the Horten 229, they flying wing was naturally lower in EM observability to start, but there was no indicator that the Horten brothers used that in designing the 229. Yours is a failure in logical thought processes.

When you are mad and have no substantial answer, try to keep out of getting personal.. it has always been bad talking to you..Mr failure in every discussion..