Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[lcloo]

I am not expert, but if the canard can return significant radar return, won't the main wing return huge radar return?

I seen some wrote that is bacause the canard's significant radar is due to refelection from its perpendicular position retaltive to fuselage, but if you observe carefully, this is not the case for J20's canard's positioning.

 

[Asoka]

"I am not expert, but if the canard can return significant radar return, won't the main wing return huge radar return?"

Exactly!

You are better than those 'experts', because you have common sense.

 

[Ultima Thule]

You're not a RCS expert either ... by the same logic, the F-35 and F-22 can also be tracked "easily" (which is wrong). The RCS analysis was clearly focused on multiple angles ... regardless, I am not a RCS expert either. But Carlo Kopp's analysis the closest we have to the actual thing ... only the PLAAF knows the true RCS figures and I'm confident that they won't make a poor decision when it comes to RCS

But CANARD gives the extra surface to radars I SAID MULTIPLE RADARS, and as for your caomparision J-20 to (F-22, F-35) they don't have CANARDS and please give me answer to this quetion then why USA can't produce a stealth jets with canards

I am not expert, but if the canard can return significant radar return, won't the main wing return huge radar return?

I seen some wrote that is bacause the canard's significant radar is due to refelection from its perpendicular position retaltive to fuselage, but if you observe carefully, this is not the case for J20's canard's positioning.

Read my post no 36 minutes ago#9698 and 1 minute ago#9705 bro and i am not underestimating J-20 as compare to F-22, F-35 and PAK-FA

 

[Figaro]

But CANARD gives the extra surface to radars I SAID MULTIPLE RADARS, and as for your caomparision J-20 to (F-22, F-35) they don't have CANARDS and please give me answer to this quetion then why USA can't produce a stealth jets with canards

I already told you that the reason why the USAF fifth gen got rid of canards was not due to stealth purposes. And please stop with the bold and colored letters ... it makes you seem if you're trying to toss out flame bait. Anyway, the RCS discussion is pointless and leads nowhere ... this has been debated for 6 years to no avail. Let us stop and not drag on this pointless discussion any longer. As for you, I highly recommend you not respond to @Asoka's posts. Please don't ... thanks.

 

[Ultima Thule]

"I am not expert, but if the canard can return significant radar return, won't the main wing return huge radar return?"

Exactly!

You are better than 'experts', because you have common sense.

You fool @Asoka CANARDS gives extra surface to the radars with exception to main wings and you ahve no common sense Mr. mentally retard @Asoka

 

[Figaro]

You fool @Asoka CANARDS gives extra surface to the radars with exception to main wings and you ahve no common sense Mr. mentally retard @Asoka

Why do you keep responding to him then? This is what I'm talking about. Your posts make just as little sense as those of @Asoka's.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Mr @gambit sir can you give the advantages and disadvantages of CANARDS with aspect of stealth thank you sir

 

[ozranger]

Mr @gambit sir can you give the advantages and disadvantages of CANARDS with aspect of stealth thank you sir

It is more of lift management for flying supersonic than stealth. Canards like the Typhoon's, which are distant to main wings, and J-20's, which are big and with modest distance to main wings, can lift up the nose with minimum deflection while the aircraft tends to pitch down in supersonic than in subsonic due to the shift of lift center. F-22 can do so by tail deflection in bigger angle and skeptically TVC nozzle deflection. If there is no contribution from TVC nozzle deflection, F-22 needs to deflect the horizontal tails a lot to push down the aft fuselage to compensate the shift of lift center in supersonic, which seems to make it more unstealthy than the canards. That's why some people guessed F-22's TVC also kicks in when flying supersonic in order to minimize the deflection angle of the tails at the cost of thrust loss.

When cruising subsonic, canards are stealthy as they stay level with no deflection. The aircraft's pitch control would rely on the minimum deflection of elevons.

The only significantly unstealthy moment, as I can see, is when maneuvering in high angle of attack, canards would need to deflect more than usual to provide proper pitch control. But I think stealth is not important then as only close distance dog fights require high AoA maneuvers, and such big deflection only happens in short moments.

In general, canards and leading edge root extensions coupled with delta wings offer J-20 high supersonic performance, high stealth, beyond average subsonic performance with relatively underpowered engines.

Such configuration desperately rely on fly control computers, which presents an outstanding challenge to its developers comparing to their counterparts on F-22. lnstitute 611 should have employed a lot of experiences they obtained from J-9 project, which started from 1960s. As shown in historical photos, they did a lot of theoretical research and wind tunnel tests for a Mach 2.5 fighter jet with canard delta configuration although practically they weren't able to achieve it in any ways as then no good engine was available and no good in-flight computer systems were available to support all moving canards. But they did collect massive test data, built up their know-how and laid a solid foundation for J-10 and J-20 development.

 

[STRANGER BIRD]

Is this a 2021 with WS-10B engine modified ?
claimed by ...

https://twitter.com/x/status/914486691779497986

https://twitter.com/x/status/914491234319663104

 

[Asoka]

"CANARDS gives extra surface to the radars"

Hey pakistaniGuy, the engineers at Lockeed Martin, must have made a big mistake, according to your silly theory, because they have designed, a giant flying wing, with wingspan 52.43 m and Wing surface area of 465.5 m².

DIMENSIONS:
Length 69.00 ft (21.03 m)
Wingspan 172.00 ft (52.43 m)
Height 17.00 ft (5.18 m)
Wing Area 5,000 ft² (465.5 m²)

With such a giant wing and huge wing surface area, it must be no way stealthy, according to your limited knowledge. I guess, you have never heard of COMPOSITE MATERIALS, and RADAR ABSORBING MATERIAL(RAM) coating to decrease radar signal reflection.

 

[Ultima Thule]

"CANARDS gives extra surface to the radars"

Hey pakistaniGuy, the engineers at Lockeed Martin, must have made a big mistake, according to your silly theory, because they have designed, a giant flying wing, with wingspan 52.43 m and Wing surface area of 465.5 m².

View attachment 429148

DIMENSIONS:
Length 69.00 ft (21.03 m)
Wingspan 172.00 ft (52.43 m)
Height 17.00 ft (5.18 m)
Wing Area 5,000 ft² (465.5 m²)

With such a giant wing and huge wing surface area, it must be no way stealthy, according to your limited knowledge. I guess, you have never heard of COMPOSITE MATERIALS, and RADAR ABSORBING MATERIAL(RAM) coating to decrease radar signal reflection.

But B-2 don't has CANARDS you fool to give extra surface to RADARS and how to make CANARDS COMPOSITE MATERIALS and RADAR ABSORBING MATERIAL(RAM) they will give extra surface to RADARS they don't totally invisible to radars, and as for your information B-2 develop by Northrop Grumman not Lockheed Martin and you have all knowledge about aerospace and aerodynamics you mentally ill @Asoka

 

[Asoka]

"give extra surface to radars"

hey pakistaniGuy,

J-20 merely has the tails, moved to the front, and now they are called canards. That don't give extra surface to radars.

It's like moving your wallet, from your back pocket, to the front pocket, don't give you extra money in your wallet.

If you don't believe me, try it and see if you ended up with extra money, or ask your mother, or kindergarten teacher, since you can't count.

 

[j20blackdragon]

I want to provide two examples from opposite ends of the spectrum.

ASH 31 glider with very high aspect ratio wings. Wingspan is massive. Wing area is high relative to the weight of the fuselage. The ASH 31 glider can fly with no engines (no thrust) at all.

On the other hand, air-to-air missiles have no main wings, just small fins. And yet, they can fly and maneuver well enough to intercept other aircraft.

Look at the two fighters below and determine which one has bigger wings relative to the weight of the fuselage.

Which plane has higher wing loading?
Which plane has lower wing loading?

Which plane is supporting more weight per square feet of wing?

Ask yourself WHY the wings are sized the way they are. There is always a reason. The aircraft designers are not stupid, nor are they incompetent.

 

[Ultima Thule]

"give extra surface to radars"

hey pakistaniGuy,

J-20 merely has the tails, moved to the front, and now they are called canards. That don't give extra surface to radars.

It's like moving your wallet, from your back pocket, to the front pocket, don't give you extra money in your wallet.

If you don't believe me, try it and see if you ended up with extra money, or ask your mother, or kindergarten teacher, since you can't count.

Frontal/headon RCS is always far more important than rear/back RCS, and please explain me why they don't gives extra surface to radars?and don't tells me your stupid theories that composite and RAM that totally invisible to all radars Even sat can't detected J-20 you put large CANARDS in front of the main wings to your stealth jet and don't expect the radar return what bogus logic you have or these on J-20 built some kind of out this universe materials that transparent to all electromagnetic waves,you have no brain in your head but sh!t in your head right Mr @Asoka

 

[khanasifm]