Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then why the dihedral on the canards ? The laws of physics must be obeyed, even by Chinese. The dihedral on the canards are necessary for aerodynamics and flight controls, as they are, they rendered the J-20 less obedient to planform alignment than desired. If they are treated in some ways to minimize their contributions to RCS, that is a different issue than planform alignment.ya i guess Chengdu AC should had selected you to be their chief designer for the J-20 instead of yangwei, since u 'obviously' know about what makes and what not makes a plane stealthy than him.
Guys ... please do not immediately bash anyone's post only since it does not fit Your opinion.
Gambit is well known to argument, he explains his conclusion even if You have another one. So mocking and bashing is not an argument. If You want, then counter his argument, why the issues he mentions are no concerns in Your opinion, but simply to tell him ignorant, arrogant or stupid is no valid discussion.
Deino
I do not need to put the F-15 into a measurement chamber to know that the corner reflectors created by the vertical and horizontal stabs made that section of the jet 'unstealthy'. Likewise, I do not need to jump off a tall building to test the law of gravity, either. Based upon what I showed the regular readers of this forum since '09, no one talks about making a 'stealthy' F-16 or J-17 any more.
Guys ... please do not immediately bash anyone's post only since it does not fit Your opinion.
Gambit is well known to argument, he explains his conclusion even if You have another one. So mocking and bashing is not an argument. If You want, then counter his argument, why the issues he mentions are no concerns in Your opinion, but simply to tell him ignorant, arrogant or stupid is no valid discussion.
Deino
The thing is, he is also well-known to be a China-basher in all matters ranging from military toys to politics.
The thing is, he is also well-known to be a China-basher in all matters ranging from military toys to politics.
Then why the dihedral on the canards ? The laws of physics must be obeyed, even by Chinese. The dihedral on the canards are necessary for aerodynamics and flight controls, as they are, they rendered the J-20 less obedient to planform alignment than desired. If they are treated in some ways to minimize their contributions to RCS, that is a different issue than planform alignment.
Exactly like some accuse me too. My point is that most of the members who don't agree with him - or me too sometimes - use only the argument "he is a basher", "he is a foreigner", ... but they bring no arguments !
I'm sure the J-20 is a true stealth fighter but I'm also sure that the US with decades of research, test aircraft in numbers and operational experiences are most likely still ahead. Additionally there are indeed a few issues like the canards, the alignment of certain axis, these strange vents on the intakes, the round nozzles without any zig-zag as on the F-35, the open chaff-and-flare boxes on the tails that cannot be ignored.
As such the J-20 again is a stealth fighter IMO, but surely the Chinese way is different to the US ... and that's worth to be discussed.
ome of them - like the canards - can be refuted, since also the NATF-contender had canards and the latest 6th generation from Boeing too, but others at least worth to be discussed. Simply telling to You are a China-basher without understanding while in return avoiding all arguments and not even given a reason why his concerns are no-ones in Your opinion is IMO the best sign of a "fan-boy".
As such all I beg is a civilised discussion with arguing ...
Deino
From all the visual cues we have, the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35.
Nevertheless, I have consistently been fair and advised everyone from making definitive statements simply because the measurement data for all these aircrafts are not public information.
From all the visual cues we have, the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35.
I'm sure the J-20 is a true stealth fighter but I'm also sure that the US with decades of research, test aircraft in numbers and operational experiences are most likely still ahead. Additionally there are indeed a few issues like the canards, the alignment of certain axis, these strange vents on the intakes, the round nozzles without any zig-zag as on the F-35, the open chaff-and-flare boxes on the tails that cannot be ignored.
Deino
Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4NyuEJ8YO
I dont have to because he IS making bold claims with no definitive proof by admiting:
and by the magical analytic powers of his bare eyes with the dihedral angle of the canards as the centrepiece of his arguement(of which he has no measurements to argue with) :
He concludes the J-20 is not 'as good' as the F-22 or F-35(and probably all other American planes)
Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4NyuEJ8YO
I dont have to because he IS making bold claims with no definitive proof by admiting:
and by the magical analytic powers of his bare eyes with the dihedral angle of the canards as the centrepiece of his arguement(of which he has no measurements to argue with) :
He concludes the J-20 is not 'as good' as the F-22 or F-35(and probably all other American planes)
I have the laws of physics. See post 6311.You simply have no definite proof that the canards or the J-20 is not very stealthy.
The PDF Chinese and their supporters have no problems citing the Air Power Australia (APA) group, even though those ya-hoos have no access to the J-20. All they did were rudimentary simulations and everyone took it as gospel.Since you have no access to it for testing or validation of your claim. So stop presenting your opinions are facts. It's simply laughable to suggest Chinese engineers cannot solve this problem, if there is one.
Do you really think this is a difficult or unsolvable problem? or you just think the Chinese cannot solve it by themselves?
...
That's right, Gambit absolutely have no definite proof of J-20's stealthiness, other than what came out of his mouth. If someone can make the B2 bomber stealthy, I will not hold my breath that no one can make the little canards stealthy.
I have the laws of physics. See post 6311.
https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ates-discussions.111471/page-421#post-8842985
Show me where I am wrong on the basics.
The PDF Chinese and their supporters have no problems citing the Air Power Australia (APA) group, even though those ya-hoos have no access to the J-20. All they did were rudimentary simulations and everyone took it as gospel.
You think Lockheed can do more than just computer simulations ? How much do you want to bet that Lockheed built a full scale model of the J-20 and tested it ? I would not want to take that bet.
Here is the SR-71 under open field radar testing decades ago.
Why upside down and where are the vertical stabs ?
But here is a bet I am willing to take: That if Lockheed reveals the radar measurement of its own J-20 model, they would reveal their proprietary measurement techniques by way of the details of the data.
It is reasonable to place the J-20's canards under suspicion. That is professional.
I agreed. I just want to hammer in the point that even if the canards are not stealthy to begin with, engineers CAN make them stealthy. China has all the resources it need to make this happen. And the laws of Physics don't prevent this from happening. I doubt that this problem is even difficult to begin with. It's just some fanboy got stuck with this idea that canards are stealthy and hold on to it.Sorry, but that's an invalid point, since shape is the predominant issue, not size alone.
Anyway again: Canards are not un-stealthy per se ... but they need a certain treatment or coating and at least are an issue worth to be discussed. Ignoring them does not make them stealthy.
Deino