Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[ptldM3]

To my knowledge, there is not a single operational fighter plane that can achieve achieve 80+ degree controllable AoA. Even the F-18 HARV with thrust vectoring was roughly in the same ballpark.

A very very short clip (16 seconds):

Russian MiG-29 & Su-27 doing Cobra Maneuver - YouTube

The higher the AoA the less control an aircraft will have due to forward momentum. however, TVC and high thrust engines allow aircraft to quickly point the nose in any direction they wish after a high AoA has been achieved. Similarly the fly-by-wire, TVC and high thrust engines allow to pilot to have control at all times.

 

[gambit]

There had been an assortment of academic journals from two Chinese universities that specialize in aviation regarding blending the canard with a LO design. They also conducted tests in anechoic chamber belonging to Chinese space agency, and the military was satisfied of the results. I trust them to know what they're doing.

You are certainly free to so trust. However, good thing for the lay readers that this is not just another Chinese playground 'echo chamber' where challengers are shut down with feeble justifications when they made pet members uncomfortable. Given the dearth of credible technical sources the lay readers have seen from the J-20's supporters versus the amount they have seen from me regarding basic principles and how they cannot be violated, the lay readers can better make up their own minds here.

 

[amalakas]

Oh SHUT UP!!!!

SU-47 failed, it is nothing more than a demo!!

If SU-47 succeeded? Why the T-50 looks NOTHING like the SU-47? Instead it looks a lot like the F-22 with much inferior stealth. You can clearly see the fan blade!!!

You are just a white european, greek and I realy feel sorry for your country. A nation with collapsed encomny. You are just ENVY with the fact that China a None White country build a fighter J-20, much better than the White Russians!!

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa My friend the aerospace engineer.... tell me you engineer you...

do you remember this ?

Oh really ? I don't ?
and you are now a control engineer?
for raytheon ?

perhaps you can tell us then how you can find the PM of a CL system, and from where, and what PM would any decent engineer allow for a simple application of say follow a reference signal or line ...

I asked you a while back ...

you still haven't answered.. I am still waiting...


oh and Martian2 ... I can see that besides foolish you are also petty.. when the arguments of the weak are taken down, they always result to insult ... hahahaha..


as for the rest, I think Gambit and ptdl3 put you back in the real world firmly... not that you wish to be there for long.

---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 AM ----------

You are certainly free to so trust. However, good thing for the lay readers that this is not just another Chinese playground 'echo chamber' where challengers are shut down with feeble justifications when they made pet members uncomfortable. Given the dearth of credible technical sources the lay readers have seen from the J-20's supporters versus the amount they have seen from me regarding basic principles and how they cannot be violated, the lay readers can better make up their own minds here.

it is funny how some people trust their side's engineers to know what they are doing, but not the other's , as if engineering is not providing solutions to given problems...

so apparently the J-20 is the result of extreme engineering, but the f-22 or other fitghters were just stumbled upon by accident....

 

[S10]

You are certainly free to so trust. However, good thing for the lay readers that this is not just another Chinese playground 'echo chamber' where challengers are shut down with feeble justifications when they made pet members uncomfortable. Given the dearth of credible technical sources the lay readers have seen from the J-20's supporters versus the amount they have seen from me regarding basic principles and how they cannot be violated, the lay readers can better make up their own minds here.

Unless you meant to tell me that you have a better sense of how J-20 performs in meeting requirements than designer bureau of the aircraft, I am certainly going to trust someone working for the project and rightfully so.

it is funny how some people trust their side's engineers to know what they are doing, but not the other's , as if engineering is not providing solutions to given problems...

so apparently the J-20 is the result of extreme engineering, but the f-22 or other fitghters were just stumbled upon by accident....

It's funny how you will not be able to find a shred of evidence where I stated F-22 or any other planes were stumbled upon by accident. Perhaps only in your little dream world.

 

[ptldM3]

oh and Martian2 ... I can see that besides foolish you are also petty.. when the arguments of the weak are taken down, they always result to insult ... hahahaha.. .

Nothing new here, look at all the cheap insults about the pak-fa and even F-22, there are countless posts where aircraft such as the pak-fa are called 'junk', 'unstealthy', 'crap' ect such petty insults usually results in a barrage of thanks. Funny thing is that Martian is usually the one quick to push the thanks button. However, when he compares the J-20 to the pak-fa it is only 'objective' and when others like me speak about the J-20 even if no insults are used, no fabricated claims are made, and the aircraft's performance is not even questioned, I am called a 'troll'. Apparently it's okay to insult another country (Greece) and make ridiculous claims/slash insults on other aircraft but how dare we defend our aircraft based on sources and well know facts.

It goes like this, the thread is going well and on topic, certain members will out of no where make cheap claims such as 'the pak-fa is garbage and not stealthy'. I will usually ask for them to explain themselves, then I will usually challenge their claims. Shortly after either a Chinese or a die-hard Chinese suck-up will call me a troll and then accuse me of 'polluting' the thread with the pak-fa when in fact it was a Chinese member that brought it up. Than in an ironic twist the guy that derailed the thread by starting the J-20/pak-fa comparison thanks the guy that accused me of derailing or polluting the thread with the pak-fa.

as for the rest, I think Gambit and ptdl3 put you back in the real world firmly... not that you wish to be there for long..

Yes but they have their own view of physics, essentially they re-writing physics the way they deem appropriate or they just plainly disregard physics and maintain their claims with zero evidence to back their claims.

 

[amalakas]

It's funny how you will not be able to find a shred of evidence where I stated F-22 or any other planes were stumbled upon by accident. Perhaps only in your little dream world.

I was not talking about you specifically, it is easy to see who from my posts.. not everything in a forum is personal my dream world or yours..

 

[below_freezing]

Aerospace engineer, please... no more... damn man...

I don't know too much about electromagnetics, so I'm keeping my mouth shut for now. A refresher on how surface discontinuities affect radio waves would be great.

 

[amalakas]

With the F-22's 2D vectored thrust and power, canards are totally worthless.

You are wasting your time, explaining notions to people used to playing pokemon card games.

Some people tend to think that the more features a plane has the awesomeness factor increases.. to put it simply, if we add magically canards and all moving stabs and black paint and DSI to the F-22 then we by definition made it more awesome than before..

the concepts of meeting requirements, answering complex technical questions, fabrication, manufacturing, strict minimum performance, desired maximum performance, contralability throughout the envelope, design trade offs, and blending with used tried and proven methods are nothing but words that geeks with thick glasses use..

the oomph factor is how many features our plane has... some people will never learn that it's not the size of the gun, it is the size of the gun relative to the hand that holds it that makes the difference...

to support some of my points, I claimed a while back, that even and F-117 taking out of mothballs today, it would fly a mission in china and back and the chinese will only find out from watching CNN...

to further support my point (to those who see it) .. I'd say that in a hypothetical confrontation today between a PLAAF equiped with X number of J-20s and a USA force equiped with X number of F-16s .. the USA force would still come on top .. and relatively easily .


and this is not to flame the thread... people need to read between the lines of what the above comment means... to those who understand the complexities of modern warfare.
for further info on why I think so, feel free to also ask Gambit, I am not entirely sure, but I would bet he might have a similar feeling..... might

 

[below_freezing]

You are wasting your time, explaining notions to people used to playing pokemon card games.

Some people tend to think that the more features a plane has the awesomeness factor increases.. to put it simply, if we add magically canards and all moving stabs and black paint and DSI to the F-22 then we by definition made it more awesome than before..

the concepts of meeting requirements, answering complex technical questions, fabrication, manufacturing, strict minimum performance, desired maximum performance, contralability throughout the envelope, design trade offs, and blending with used tried and proven methods are nothing but words that geeks with thick glasses use..

the oomph factor is how many features our plane has... some people will never learn that it's not the size of the gun, it is the size of the gun relative to the hand that holds it that makes the difference...

to support some of my points, I claimed a while back, that even and F-117 taking out of mothballs today, it would fly a mission in china and back and the chinese will only find out from watching CNN...

to further support my point (to those who see it) .. I'd say that in a hypothetical confrontation today between a PLAAF equiped with X number of J-20s and a USA force equiped with X number of F-16s .. the USA force would still come on top .. and relatively easily .


and this is not to flame the thread... people need to read between the lines of what the above comment means... to those who understand the complexities of modern warfare.
for further info on why I think so, feel free to also ask Gambit, I am not entirely sure, but I would bet he might have a similar feeling..... might

if it was that easy, the US would've done it already.

dont become ideological lol. just because 1 dumbass said something, doesn't make everything opposite of what he says true.

DSI indeed reduces RCS. whats more to say? the gap between the fuselage and intakes of the F-22 can cause constructive interference. is that not fact? i'm not going to get into the canards thing. the canards may or may not contribute to RCS depending on their material and on the specific shaping. there are critical phenomena that may take place and the canards could be just over or just under some threshhold.

 

[amalakas]

if it was that easy, the US would've done it already.

dont become ideological lol. just because 1 dumbass said something, doesn't make everything opposite of what he says true.

DSI indeed reduces RCS. whats more to say? the gap between the fuselage and intakes of the F-22 can cause constructive interference. is that not fact? i'm not going to get into the canards thing. the canards may or may not contribute to RCS depending on their material and on the specific shaping. there are critical phenomena that may take place and the canards could be just over or just under some threshhold.

I didn't say it is easy, nor that the US or china wants that. I was making a point about other things.

 

[Vibs]

if it was that easy, the US would've done it already.

dont become ideological lol. just because 1 dumbass said something, doesn't make everything opposite of what he says true.

DSI indeed reduces RCS. whats more to say? the gap between the fuselage and intakes of the F-22 can cause constructive interference. is that not fact? i'm not going to get into the canards thing. the canards may or may not contribute to RCS depending on their material and on the specific shaping. there are critical phenomena that may take place and the canards could be just over or just under some threshhold.

I'm not entirely convinced about the DSI argument. Remember RCS is calculated by area covered. So even if you have a big solid block in the center of the air frame it's contribution to the RCS will be much lower than 2 points at the end of the wing tips. Unless the rest of the aircraft has reached a level of stealth (wrt to RCS) the intakes won't matter much. The RCS will be low enough to prevent detection from ground based radars.

But to be honest, no aircraft is invisible to aerial surveillance and once detected and in the presence of a real time relay of information it will be highly vunerable (any 5th gen aircraft)

 

[below_freezing]

I'm not entirely convinced about the DSI argument. Remember RCS is calculated by area covered. So even if you have a big solid block in the center of the air frame it's contribution to the RCS will be much lower than 2 points at the end of the wing tips. Unless the rest of the aircraft has reached a level of stealth (wrt to RCS) the intakes won't matter much. The RCS will be low enough to prevent detection from ground based radars.

But to be honest, no aircraft is invisible to aerial surveillance and once detected and in the presence of a real time relay of information it will be highly vunerable (any 5th gen aircraft)

The intakes are one of the greatest contributors to RCS for the entire airplane, I think.

 

[fakein]

Wow, guys you should have opened a new thread for comparison among F22, J20 and T50 to avoid derailing this one, though that new thread would very possibly be unsubstantial and meaningless since basically none of the confidential data is available. I am curious why the mods sleep on such irrelevant debates.

Martian and AerospaceEngineer please stop propping claims devoid of credible evidence and analysis and bashing the rivaling jets. Both LM and Sukhoi are leading design bureaus of fighters, to which respect is due, and from which many other design bureaus, CAC included, need to draw insights.

J20, emerging as an eye-catching stunt, is just one indication of the iceberg tipping out of the surface, whose unofficial release was arguably officially intended. Yet too much attention on such a piece of weapon might easily lead someone to neglect the fact that modern wars are confrontations between systems. Scheduled as part of the system, to what kind of performance and effect J20 could achieve depends on how well it fits into the whole and what the whole system would become. But I would bet few have the audacity and arrogance to underestimate China's determination and capability to upgrade and modernize her defense system. Raising F117 and F16 in such context, if one has a glance of the panorama of the world from a military perspective, is reminiscent of extolling Cho-Ko-Nu, Cataphract or Zero in history books.

Better to take J20 as a signal rather than a symbol or much less possibly a gimmick.

 

[amalakas]

The intakes are one of the greatest contributors to RCS for the entire airplane, I think.

you are forgetting though that they are only to the frontal aspect i.e. you have to be looking straight in the engine intake to get a strong component reflection..

depending on the engine intake design of a flying plane, a Radar receiver on the ground may get none of the reflection from the intakes.

so in a look down situation the engine intakes don't contribute at all

 

[Vibs]

The intakes are one of the greatest contributors to RCS for the entire airplane, I think.

It is a contributor to the RCS from the front. For ground radars not so much. Like I said before we have to take into account total area covered. From the ground or the sides, the contribution of the inlets will not be too high. Even from the front wing tip to wing tip coverage if not designed by stealth will add a lot more than the inlets.
But eventually there will be a move towards better inlet design. But we may have reached the treshhold of this aspect of stealth.