Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[Figaro]

Actually -- No. See Rule 2 in post 9735.


But I do.


Since I know what I am talking about, can I call you 'idiot' ?

Or how you spew pseudo-science in a condescending manner ... can I call you a 'bigot'

 

[gambit]

Or how you spew pseudo-science in a condescending manner ... can I call you a 'bigot'

What I 'spew' is not pseudo-science. Disprove me -- if you can.

why everybody is still spreading the canard that canards are bad for stealth？？？？？？

See Rule 1 of post 9735.

 

[Figaro]

What I 'spew' is not pseudo-science. Disprove me -- if you can.

I'm not going to sift through your "pseudo-science". I myself am not an authority on RCS either so I don't feel like pointlessly arguing with a stubborn poster. The FACT is you're not a RCS expert or an aerospace engineer. Do you work with Lockheed Martin ... or even better, do you have access to a RCS testing facility? Instead of berating the Chinese engineers on RCS, why don't you think about their qualifications versus yours. Why the hell should anyone listen to your RCS analysis actual experts? If I may, you're just starting a flame war ...

 

[gambit]

I'm not going to sift through your "pseudo-science". I myself am not an authority on RCS either so I don't feel like pointlessly arguing with a stubborn poster. The FACT is you're not a RCS expert or an aerospace engineer. Do you work with Lockheed Martin ... or even better, do you have excess to a RCS testing facility? Instead of berating the Chinese engineers on RCS, why don't you think about their qualifications versus yours. Why the hell should anyone listen to your RCS analysis over any other? If I may, you're just creating a flame war ...

I do not need to work for Lockheed to understand basic radar principles which creates the foundation for 'stealth'. Just like a civilian pilot flying a Cessna 172 do not need to be a fighter pilot to understand basic aerodynamics.

Where have I 'berate' the Chinese engineers ? In fact, I often used Chinese engineers to support my arguments.

How about the '10-lambda' rule ? Did you know that it dictate the shape of the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and the J-20 ?

Just because you are ignorant of the science behind the aircraft, do not call what you do not understand 'pseudo-science'.

 

[Figaro]

I do not need to work for Lockheed to understand basic radar principles which creates the foundation for 'stealth'. Just like a civilian pilot flying a Cessna 172 do not need to be a fighter pilot to understand basic aerodynamics.

Where have I 'berate' the Chinese engineers ? In fact, I often used Chinese engineers to support my arguments.

How about the '10-lambda' rule ? Do you know that it dictate the shape of the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and the J-20 ?

Just because you are ignorant of the science behind the aircraft, do not call what you do not understand 'pseudo-science'.

You make stealth sound like child's play ... guess the billions of dollars of investment was completely squandered . Unfortunately, stealth is quite complicated ... I daresay.

 

[gambit]

F-22's giant tail stabilizers, are actually much bigger, and has greater surface areas, than J-20's canards. According to the pakistaniGuy's claim that should be return greater RCS.

Yes, this pakistaniGuy really is equating surface area with RCS return. And he really think by moving the tails, to the front, and call it canards, really gives the plane EXTRA surface area.

See Rule 1 of post 9735: Control of QUANTITY or radiators.

The more protruding structures you have in the radar stream, the higher total surface area.

You make stealth sound like child's play ... guess the billions of dollars of investment was completely squandered . Unfortunately, stealth is quite complicated ... I daresay.

The principles are understandable, even to the layman. But it is the execution that is difficult and expensive.

All you have to do is disprove me -- on principles.

 

[gambit]

This is the best we can get from AESA image, can you tell us which are the wings, canards or stabilator?

This is why posts like yours must be challenged, and I will say this gently: It is ignorant.

I can tell that you do not have even the basics of radar detection.

The above is how a radar -- ESA or else -- really sees a body, whether that body is a human, an automobile, or an aircraft: As a cluster of voltage spikes.

Each voltage spike has its own characteristics such as amplitude, freq, phase, and so on.

From this cluster, we can tell which IS the fuselage and which ARE flight control structures. So if a cluster of voltage spikes have a pair of spikes at a certain locations in front of the larger pairs of spikes that seems to indicate wings, we can assume that the aircraft has canards. It is not certain. But we are not looking for certainty if the spikes are canards or wings or fins. What we look for is any prominence. The more prominences, or voltage spikes, the greater the odds the radar computer will classify the return as a valid target. That is why a radar engineer do not need to have work experience in 'stealth' to even guess if an aircraft is 'stealthy' or not, and 'stealthy' to what degree.

Posts like yours SEVERELY mislead the readers.

 

[leapx]

What I 'spew' is not pseudo-science. Disprove me -- if you can.


See Rule 1 of post 9735.

You proved nothing. A regular design do not has canards, But it has horizontal tail. Is horizontal tail radiator？

J-20 has fins to block engine nozzle sideways. they manufacturer the fin with RAM as much as possible.

But this is a different question.

An old picture.

 

[Asoka]

hey everyone, don't feed this troller, the_gambler_guy, plz. It's a waste of your time, and pollutes this thread.

 

[gambit]

You proved nothing. A regular design do not has canards, But it has horizontal tail. Is horizontal tail radiator？

It is. The question further support the conclusion that ALL of you are ignorant -- and I say that gently -- of the basic principles of radar detection.

In radar detection, if a structure reflects, it is called a 'radiator'. Some engineers would even use the word 'transmitter', but 'radiator' is the more common usage. The word indicates a behavior.

 

[leapx]

It is. The question further support the conclusion that ALL of you are ignorant -- and I say that gently -- of the basic principles of radar detection.

In radar detection, if a structure reflects, it is called a 'radiator'. Some engineers would even use the word 'transmitter', but 'radiator' is the more common usage. The word indicates a behavior.

An arrogant posture will not help you. All you need to do is just answer the question

It is. The question further support the conclusion that ALL of you are ignorant -- and I say that gently -- of the basic principles of radar detection.

In radar detection, if a structure reflects, it is called a 'radiator'. Some engineers would even use the word 'transmitter', but 'radiator' is the more common usage. The word indicates a behavior.

if it is, how are canards worse than horizontal tail？？ or Why do we always say canards are bad for stealth？

You proved nothing yet

 

[gambit]

An arrogant posture will not help you. All you need to do is just answer the question

Saying that you are ignorant of the subject is not being arrogant. It is speaking the truth.

if it is, how are canards worse than horizontal tail？？ or Why do we always say canards are bad for stealth？

I will repeat...

In designing a 'low radar observable' body, there are three main rules:

1- Control of quantity of radiators
2- Control of array of radiators
3- Control of modes of radiation

If you take any structure BY ITSELF -- wing, fin, or just a small antenna -- that structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. Do you understand ? You have to take that structure and apply it against the three rules above.

So when we say 'canard', there is only type of flight control structure that qualified, a pair of horizontal stabilators that are in front of the wings.

A structure BY ITSELF is NOT a wing, NOT a fin, NOT a horizontal stabilator, NOT a vertical stabilator, and NOT a canard. Do you understand ?

But if you take that structure and put it somewhere on a fuselage, then it becomes a wing, or a horizontal stabilator, or a vertical stabilator, or a canard. A structure have a name according to its location on the aircraft and aerodynamic relationships with other structures. Do you understand ?

So for the J-20, the canards at least suspicious because they contributes to Rule 1. Not because each canard BY ITSELF is somehow bad for 'stealth'. The J-20 with eight major flight controls structures are LESS obedient to the three rules than compares to the F-22 which has 6 structures. Do you understand ?

You proved nothing yet

I proved that I understand the subject better than all of you.

 

[leapx]

Saying that you are ignorant of the subject is not being arrogant. It is speaking the truth.


I will repeat...

In designing a 'low radar observable' body, there are three main rules:

1- Control of quantity of radiators
2- Control of array of radiators
3- Control of modes of radiation

If you take any structure BY ITSELF -- wing, fin, or just a small antenna -- that structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. Do you understand ? You have to take that structure and apply it against the three rules above.

So when we say 'canard', there is only type of flight control structure that qualified, a pair of horizontal stabilators that are in front of the wings.

A structure BY ITSELF is NOT a wing, NOT a fin, NOT a horizontal stabilator, NOT a vertical stabilator, and NOT a canard. Do you understand ?

But if you take that structure and put it somewhere on a fuselage, then it becomes a wing, or a horizontal stabilator, or a vertical stabilator, or a canard. A structure have a name according to its location on the aircraft and aerodynamic relationships with other structures. Do you understand ?

So for the J-20, the canards at least suspicious because they contributes to Rule 1. Not because each canard BY ITSELF is somehow bad for 'stealth'. The J-20 with eight major flight controls structures are LESS obedient to the three rules than compares to the F-22 which has 6 structures. Do you understand ?


I proved that I understand the subject better than all of you.

nothing convincing at all. we hear about canards are bad for stealth for many years, No one give convincing explanation.Neither do you.

 

[Hyperion]

I come here to watch some nice pics of J20, and then I have to sift through pages upon pages of irrelevant info......

 

[gambit]

nothing convincing at all. we hear about canards are bad for stealth for many years, No one give convincing explanation.Neither do you.

Because you looks at the canard as a STANDALONE structure. You are wrong in doing that. You have to look at the WHOLE aircraft and applies those three rules.

You are not convinced because you are not interested in an honest debate. You already made up your mind: No. You do not even want to consider: Maybe.

I will repeat...

A STANDALONE structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. Why is that so difficult to understand ? I have been saying that for yrs on this forum.

It is only when a structure is in physical relationships with other structures is when the AIRCRAFT -- not the structure -- is more or less 'stealthy' than its competitors. Why is that so difficult to understand ?

You focus on the canards because you do not know the subject and do not care for honest debate. It is the AIRCRAFT that matters, not the canards.