Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[gambit]

@gambit what do you think is the j20 a close coupled or long armed in respects to canard configuration ?

At the risk of being accused of being a racist again ? No, thanks. I am a sensor specialist, not an aerodynamicist. Nevertheless, I have my own opinion about the canards as aerodynamic structures.

There is a bias in favor of the PDF Chinese, especially when all they have to do is accused me of being racist against the Chinese people. No investigation will be done as to the legitimacy of the charge. Mr. Asok admitted he is new here and already that charge was quick on the draw. Not worth it.

Come on !
Especially since he has RCS facilities available and a full-scale model of a J-20 to test it !??
Dr Karlo Kopp is an idiot with only one desire: To persuade the Australian military to purchase the F-22 (which is impossible) and additionally to spread the fear in the face of "incoming hordes of Chinese" !

He is a joke.

Deino

When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss......He obviously does not know how little regard Kopp is held on this forum.

 

[Asoka]

Again "could be" "I think" I believe" ... they are chaff and flare dispensers, just look ... or are they vents from the warp-drive or a cloaking device ??

Come on !
Especially since he has RCS facilities available and a full-scale model of a J-20 to test it !??
Dr Karlo Kopp is an idiot with only one desire: To persuade the Australian military to purchase the F-22 (which is impossible) and additionally to spread the fear in the face of "incoming hordes of Chinese" !

He is a joke.

Deino

"Again "could be" "I think" I believe"" . . . . Yes, I couch my speculations with those phrase, since I am no aviation expert nor do I have any inside informations.

You are not different from me. Neither of us have any solid informations or experiences about J-20 that is not gleaned from the Internet. And I don't claim to be an aviation expert, unlike someone else.

"Dr Karlo Kopp is an idiot" That I really disagreed totally.

His criticisms of F-35 regarding that its no match for the current Flankers and future Russian and Chinese fighters like T-50 and J-20 are solid and on the spot.

Now, I ask you, what is your speculation of those Hexgonal mesh opening on the side of the plane?

At the risk of being accused of being a racist again ? No, thanks. I am a sensor specialist, not an aerodynamicist. Nevertheless, I have my own opinion about the canards as aerodynamic structures.

There is a bias in favor of the PDF Chinese, especially when all they have to do is accused me of being racist against the Chinese people. No investigation will be done as to the legitimacy of the charge. Mr. Asok admitted he is new here and already that charge was quick on the draw. Not worth it.

When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss......He obviously does not know how little regard Kopp is held on this forum.

No need to be falsely modest here. One quick look and comparison, I would say J-20 and Typhoon has a long coupled canard, and Rafael and Gripen has a closely coupled canard.

At the risk of being accused of being a racist again ? No, thanks. I am a sensor specialist, not an aerodynamicist. Nevertheless, I have my own opinion about the canards as aerodynamic structures.

There is a bias in favor of the PDF Chinese, especially when all they have to do is accused me of being racist against the Chinese people. No investigation will be done as to the legitimacy of the charge. Mr. Asok admitted he is new here and already that charge was quick on the draw. Not worth it.


When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss......He obviously does not know how little regard Kopp is held on this forum.

"When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss... "

Dr. Kopp is hated in the western defense circle and press because he is telling the truth that F-35 is a flying pig. I have read all his article in his website. I don't find him questionable. His opinions are solid.

Gamb*t-desired RCS

Good one! The main wing of F-22 is enormous compared to J-20 canard and closely coupled to the stabliser. How come you don't want to comment on that wing's RCS, Gambit?

 

[gambit]

The man cited 'plasma stealth'. As if he brought on something new.

For the interested readers...Try 'plasma antenna'.

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

The idea of 'plasma stealth' have been discussed on this forum before and since the yrs passed, nothing came out of it. The 'plasma stealth' that everyone talked about was on producing a plasma cloud enveloping the aircraft while flying at Mach.

If we are to take the current technology level, any exploitation of plasma as a component for low radar observability have better odds with the plasma antenna.

Theoretically, an array of plasma antennas on the aircraft's surface should absorb enough of the impinging radar signals to, again theoretically, render the aircraft low radar observable in the same manner as shaping could. And again, to date, nothing came out of that idea due to technical difficulties and finance.

 

[yusheng]

"Again "could be" "I think" I believe"" . . . . Yes, I couch my speculations with those phrase, since I am no aviation expert nor do I have any inside informations.

 

[gambit]

Dr. Kopp is hated in the western defense circle and press because he is telling the truth that F-35 is a flying pig. I have read all his article in his website. I don't find him questionable. His opinions are solid.

Of course, you do. That is funny since you admitted that you have no aviation experience to start, so how can you tell if Kopp is more credible than those who have actually FLOWN the F-35 ?

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/f-35s-critics-repeat-history-of-trashing-the-next-military-aircraft/

Virtually every modern military aircraft, particularly fighters, have been subject to nearly identical criticisms. In fact, each of the airplanes that the critics say should be preferred over the F-35, the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 E/F and the A-10 were in their day the targets of similar critiques, sometimes by the very same individuals who today are excoriating the Joint Strike Fighter. Many of these debates were catalogued in a terrificarticle by Peter Grier in Air Force Magazine.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/August 2010/0810failures.aspx

The F-15, AWACS, and C-17 were derided as boondoggles early on. Things changed.

The F-15 Eagle, E-3 AWACS, and the C-17 Globemaster III, to pick three, all had significant teething problems, and all developed into aircraft the Pentagon can’t do without today.

Your China have YET to produce anything even 1/10th as notable as the three aircrafts cited as 'boondoggles'.

What do you know of the F-16's kapton issue, eh ?

When I transferred to the F-16, the Air Force's entire F-16 fleet was in scheduled repairs for the flawed kapton wiring harnesses. Many predicted that the kapton wire flaw would mean the end of the F-16. And yet the jet continues to fly today and gotten even better.

So if you admitted that you are have no aviation experience, maybe the wise thing to do is to keep quiet about subjects you know nothing about, and be intellectually honest enough to consider all sides, even the government's side.

 

[Asoka]

The man cited 'plasma stealth'. As if he brought on something new.

For the interested readers...Try 'plasma antenna'.

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

The idea of 'plasma stealth' have been discussed on this forum before and since the yrs passed, nothing came out of it. The 'plasma stealth' that everyone talked about was on producing a plasma cloud enveloping the aircraft while flying at Mach.

If we are to take the current technology level, any exploitation of plasma as a component for low radar observability have better odds with the plasma antenna.

Theoretically, an array of plasma antennas on the aircraft's surface should absorb enough of the impinging radar signals to, again theoretically, render the aircraft low radar observable in the same manner as shaping could. And again, to date, nothing came out of that idea due to technical difficulties and finance.

"The man cited 'plasma stealth'. As if he brought on something new. " That's funny!

I think I am the first person to mention that J-20 might be using plasma stealth. Never heard of anyone suggesting that before. I heard of T-50 might going to use it.

"And again, to date, nothing came out of that idea due to technical difficulties and finance." True. I agreed.

Some people think plasma stealth means evelope the whole plane with plasma. That's difficult to do, since the Radar needs to see through the plasma and various communication equipments need to work too. Partial plasma stealth might be more practical.

 

[Blue Marlin]

At the risk of being accused of being a racist again ? No, thanks. I am a sensor specialist, not an aerodynamicist. Nevertheless, I have my own opinion about the canards as aerodynamic structures.

There is a bias in favor of the PDF Chinese, especially when all they have to do is accused me of being racist against the Chinese people. No investigation will be done as to the legitimacy of the charge. Mr. Asok admitted he is new here and already that charge was quick on the draw. Not worth it.


When he cited Kopp and the APA, it is time to dismiss......He obviously does not know how little regard Kopp is held on this forum.

who cares what they think, what are they gonna do about it?
it depends on the chinese user in regards to the bias.
anyway i respect your move to abstain.

 

[Asoka]

Of course, you do. That is funny since you admitted that you have no aviation experience to start, so how can you tell if Kopp is more credible than those who have actually FLOWN the F-35 ?

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/f-35s-critics-repeat-history-of-trashing-the-next-military-aircraft/


http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/August 2010/0810failures.aspx

Your China have YET to produce anything even 1/10th as notable as the three aircrafts cited as 'boondoggles'.

What do you know of the F-16's kapton issue, eh ?

When I transferred to the F-16, the Air Force's entire F-16 fleet was in scheduled repairs for the flawed kapton wiring harnesses. Many predicted that the kapton wire flaw would mean the end of the F-16. And yet the jet continues to fly today and gotten even better.

So if you admitted that you are have no aviation experience, maybe the wise thing to do is to keep quiet about subjects you know nothing about, and be intellectually honest enough to consider all sides, even the government's side.

"Virtually every modern military aircraft, particularly fighters, have been subject to nearly identical criticisms. In fact, each of the airplanes that the critics say should be preferred over the F-35, the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 E/F and the A-10 were in their day the targets of similar critiques, sometimes by the very same individuals who today are excoriating the Joint Strike Fighter. "

I take your point. Many aircrafts had a difficult development history, but eventually overcame the difficulties. I am not old enough to remember all those histories. But it is also true that many poorly designed aircrafts got cancelled before they went into production or produced only a few copies.

Let's face it, the F-35 is an exceptionally poorly conceived aircraft. It will failed in all the roles its design to fulfill. The reason it cannot be cancel is because there is no replacement in sight for it.

Defend it all you want. China and Russia will be much safer because of it. We are laughing and rolling on the ground.

 

[gambit]

I take your point. Many aircrafts had a difficult development history, but eventually overcame the difficulties. I am not old enough to remember all those histories. But it is also true that many poorly designed aircrafts got cancelled before they went into production or produced only a few copies.

Let's face it, the F-35 is an exceptionally poorly conceived aircraft. It will failed in all the roles its design to fulfill. The reason it cannot be cancel is because there is no replacement in sight for it.

This is why I do not take you seriously: You cannot see how you contradict yourself.

For an aircraft to overcome development problems, it takes time. Not only that, it takes FLYING. Not only that, it takes FLYING IN ACTUAL MISSIONS. The F-35 is new. Barely deployed.

Your China have yet to produce an indigenous fighter like the F-35. No, the J-20 does not even compare. EVERYTHING that are in the J-20 have been done before, while what is in the F-35, our potential adversaries are nervous about what it can do. My first assignment was the F-111 and it was considered a failure, and yet the Soviets became terrified of it. Every arms reduction talks, the Soviets wanted the F-111 out of England. The F-111 was the world's best strategic penetration fighter-bomber. How do we know ? Because Soviet avionics engineer Adolf Tolkachev, who became our agent, confirmed it. The Soviets had no air defense system capable of going against the F-111.

You think Tolkachev came from my imagination ?

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

You are in a subject that is over your head. On the one hand, you were willing to give credit to aircrafts that had problems, but then insisted that the new F-35 is a failure. Just like the rest of the PDF Chinese, intellectual consistency is not your strong suit.

 

[grey boy 2]

 

[grey boy 2]

 

[grey boy 2]

 

[Ultima Thule]

"The man cited 'plasma stealth'. As if he brought on something new. " That's funny!

I think I am the first person to mention that J-20 might be using plasma stealth. Never heard of anyone suggesting that before. I heard of T-50 might going to use it.

"And again, to date, nothing came out of that idea due to technical difficulties and finance." True. I agreed.

Some people think plasma stealth means evelope the whole plane with plasma. That's difficult to do, since the Radar needs to see through the plasma and various communication equipments need to work too. Partial plasma stealth might be more practical.

bro you are acting like 10 year old kid who knows nothing about jet's RCS and insisting he is right and senior members of PDF are wrong J-20 with plasma stealth,plasma absorb all kind of radio waves, if plasma generator in J-20 created plasma cloud around J-20, so how can J-20 detect enemy jets? so kid their is no Sh!t plasma stealth understand kid go kid this place is not for yours, go play your toys

 

[yusheng]

silly comments, i am not saying J20 has or does not has plasma coat, but

plasma still is a choice when under some situations, such as when attacking fixed targets on land, water surface, J20 just fly to the near position and let the missile to do the left.

the other is to stop plasma coat when collecting the data from the system, and then continue plasma coat.

and also, you don't need to be stealth all the way, just in time is ok.

todays' war does not need the plane to find the target by itself all the time. anyway, when dog fighting, no radar needed any more, just your eyes and feeling.

 

[Asoka]

bro you are acting like 10 year old kid who knows nothing about jet's RCS and insisting he is right and senior members of PDF are wrong J-20 with plasma stealth,plasma absorb all kind of radio waves, if plasma generator in J-20 created plasma cloud around J-20, so how can J-20 detect enemy jets? so kid their is no Sh!t plasma stealth understand kid go kid this place is not for yours, go play your toys

I was suggesting J-20 might have PARTIAL plasma stealth coating on the SIDE that will not block its radar and other communication antennas. The joke is on you.

A quick search on China's Baidu search engine on the term "Plasma and RCS" returns over a 100 technical papers on the subject. For some reason, China is very open with its researches on RCS or stealth technology. A similar search on "Free Scientific Publications", the goto place for world's scientists for technical papers returns almost none.

It seems China is already very active in this field. It's time for me to read up on this plasma and stealth subject.

This is why I do not take you seriously: You cannot see how you contradict yourself.

For an aircraft to overcome development problems, it takes time. Not only that, it takes FLYING. Not only that, it takes FLYING IN ACTUAL MISSIONS. The F-35 is new. Barely deployed.

Your China have yet to produce an indigenous fighter like the F-35. No, the J-20 does not even compare. EVERYTHING that are in the J-20 have been done before, while what is in the F-35, our potential adversaries are nervous about what it can do. My first assignment was the F-111 and it was considered a failure, and yet the Soviets became terrified of it. Every arms reduction talks, the Soviets wanted the F-111 out of England. The F-111 was the world's best strategic penetration fighter-bomber. How do we know ? Because Soviet avionics engineer Adolf Tolkachev, who became our agent, confirmed it. The Soviets had no air defense system capable of going against the F-111.

You think Tolkachev came from my imagination ?

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

You are in a subject that is over your head. On the one hand, you were willing to give credit to aircrafts that had problems, but then insisted that the new F-35 is a failure. Just like the rest of the PDF Chinese, intellectual consistency is not your strong suit.

I did not contradict myself. I had admitted many aircrafts had overcame initial difficulties and became successful. I also said "But it is also true that many poorly designed aircrafts got cancelled before they went into production or produced only a few copies."

There are many aircrafts designs that are so bad, the only sensible solution is to get rid of them. F-35 is one prime example.