Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[Leclan]

i'm quite astonished when u compare J-20 with a mirage. yes J-20 has canards,but its not only a mirage 2000 or mirage 2000 with canards.....J-20 was designed with canards,and with LERX,which is one part. another part is,it was designed to utilize multiple-vortex generated by canards,air inlet upper-edge(not sure with the equiped ones),and LERX to improve lift. besides the body was designed as lifting body. the curvature of wing and body surface all has been strictly calculated and tested in wind tunnel. overall J-20's aerodynamic has a essential differences with mirage 2000 and the canards-one.
F-35A also doesnt have tvc,F-35A also has a traditional aerodynamic configuration,the main wing and the horizontal tail. is F-35A's maneuverability just like F-15? is F-15's maneuverability just like F-4? dont tell me the improvement of maneu all comes from thrust..

and of course,J-20 was designed with canards as part of whole aerodynamic system,without it J-20 is another aircraft. it's not just a mirage2000 with canards.

 

[Daniel808]

You clearly are in over your head.

Why do you focus on the canards when you should be focused ON THE AIRCRAFT ? That is the issue.

The canards are CONTRIBUTORS just as anything else you want to add on the aircraft. The J-20 REQUIRES the canards and with 8 major flight control structures, there is no avoiding the laws of physics that the higher the QUANTITY of radiators, the higher the RCS.

@gambit If you still insist that J-20 Stealth fighter have more RCS than F-22 as a whole.

Than we also need to discuss that Stealth Aircraft capability as a whole.

If we compare J-20 with F-22 as a whole.
I will not compare J-20 with F-35, because it's plain stupid. it's like comparing Dragon with Fat pig. okay, leave F-35 alone.


You own can compare itself.

As a whole J-20 definetly more Agile, have much Longer Combat range (and it's Important),
Can Load much more Payloads,
Have more Deadly radar because J-20 nose can hold bigger AESA radar with more T/R module on it than F-22,
,and
Also can carry heavier Advanced avionics.

Every stealth aircraft have their own pro and cons.
And that's pro and cons between J-20 and F-22
Deal with it.

Look at this one guys
his another try, lol
@Martian2 @aliaselin @52051

 

[gambit]

@gambit If you still insist that J-20 Stealth fighter have more RCS than F-22 as a whole.

Than we also need to discuss that Stealth Aircraft capability as a whole.

If we compare J-20 with F-22 as a whole.
I will not compare J-20 with F-35, because it's plain stupid. it's like comparing Dragon with Fat pig. okay, leave F-35 alone.


You own can compare itself.

As a whole J-20 definetly more Agile, have much Longer Combat range (and it's Important),
Can Load much more Payloads,
Have more Deadly radar because J-20 nose can hold bigger AESA radar with more T/R module on it than F-22,
,and
Also can carry heavier Advanced avionics.

Every stealth aircraft have their own pro and cons.
And that's pro and cons between J-20 and F-22
Deal with it.

Look at this one guys
his another try, lol
@Martian2 @aliaselin @52051

News for you, son. Look up Operation Bolo. That was when a bunch of 'fat pig' F-4s nearly decimated a flight of agile MIG-21s. And at that time, the F-4s had no guns and dubious missiles.

The qualities of the J-20 that you claimed to make the J-20 'superior' to the F-22 is dubious at best.

AESA radar ? What do YOU know of even basic radar detection principles in the first place ? I dare say -- Nothing. You think that just because one ESA array has 'more' T/R modules than the other that automatically make it better ? What you say are mere generalizations that you read from Chinese forums where the people are equally clueless as you. So am going to give you at least one clue, kid.

There is a percentage of T/R modules -- higher or lower -- that will make an ESA array qualitatively better than the other, and that figure is not lower than %10.

For example...If array A has 1000 T/R modules, array B must have at least %10 greater of T/R modules. Remember, am using %10 only as an example. The real figure ? You will have to find out on your own.

Considering the fact that none of you can explain how the 10-lambda rule affects the design shape of the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20, the odds of you completing the homework assignment I gave you -- is very low.

The point of Operation Bolo is that the PLAAF is a babe while the USAF/USN/USMC combined airpower is a proven combat veteran. So even if the J-20 is somehow a 'superior' fighter, only a fool would bet against US.

You can -- in your shortsightedness -- focus on the pros and cons of the hardware so you can get a lot of 'Thanks' for your posts. Those who are smarter than you focus on the pros and cons of the forces.

 

[Asoka]

oh plz, leave that gambler_troll, alone, and let him talk to himself.

1.) It's enough for all to see, after several years of this sh*ts, that he has no clue on what he is talking about.

2.) He has proven with his "Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried", and "J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44", and "The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20" drivels that his USAF "credentials" is a joke.

3.) And his claim that is an Vietnamese, is a transparent ploy, to deflect the frequent charges of white racism, from many other members.

Can anyone, other than that pakistani_guy, still believe all those the_gambler_troll's bullsh*ts, after all those years?

 

[gambit]

oh plz, leave that gambler_troll, alone, and let him talk to himself.

It's enough for all to see, after several years of this sh*ts, that he has no clue on what he is talking about. He has proven with his "Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-can't-make-it-stealthy" drivels that his USAF "credential" is a joke. And his claim that is an vietnamese, is a transparent ploy, to deflect the charge of white racism.

The problem for your argument is that I NEVER said such things.

Nowhere have I ever said on this forum that the canard is not 'stealthy'. I have consistently said that a STANDALONE structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. So if you take the canard off the aircraft, it is meaningless to 'stealth'. In fact, you cannot even call it a 'canard' once it is off the aircraft. A 'canard' is a flight controls structure that has a SPECIFIC location on the aircraft. Without that specific location, you cannot call it a 'canard' and it has no bearings on 'stealth'.

The canards -- once installed on the aircraft -- are CONTRIBUTORS to final RCS. And when the aircraft has X numbers of structural protrusions into the radar stream, its RCS will be higher than an aircraft that has less-than-X numbers of structural protrusions.

The reason you guys focus on the canards is because you have not bothered to learn the basics of aerodynamics and aircraft structures in the first place.

An aircraft needs a main lifting mechanism, so we call them 'wings'. An aircraft needs some form of yaw axis stability mechanism, so we create a structure for that and call it the 'vertical stabilator'. An aircraft needs a pitch axis control method so we create the 'horizontal stabilator' and put them aft of the 'wings'. If we move the 'horizontal stabilators' to fore of the 'wings', we call them 'canards'. Do you understand ?

So it is not the canard itself but whether how many of these flight controls structures that are on the aircraft. Do you understand ?

You focus on the canard is -- and I say this gently -- because you are ignorant.

 

[Figaro]

The problem for your argument is that I NEVER said such things.

Nowhere have I ever said on this forum that the canard is not 'stealthy'. I have consistently said that a STANDALONE structure is neither good nor bad for 'stealth'. So if you take the canard off the aircraft, it is meaningless to 'stealth'. In fact, you cannot even call it a 'canard' once it is off the aircraft. A 'canard' is a flight controls structure that has a SPECIFIC location on the aircraft. Without that specific location, you cannot call it a 'canard' and it has no bearings on 'stealth'.

The canards -- once installed on the aircraft -- are CONTRIBUTORS to final RCS. And when the aircraft has X numbers of structural protrusions into the radar stream, its RCS will be higher than an aircraft that has less-than-X numbers of structural protrusions.

The reason you guys focus on the canards is because you have not bothered to learn the basics of aerodynamics and aircraft structures in the first place.

An aircraft needs a main lifting mechanism, so we call them 'wings'. An aircraft needs some form of yaw axis stability mechanism, so we create a structure for that and call it the 'vertical stabilator'. An aircraft needs a pitch axis control method so we create the 'horizontal stabilator' and put them aft of the 'wings'. If we move the 'horizontal stabilators' to fore of the 'wings', we call them 'canards'. Do you understand ?

So it is not the canard itself but whether how many of these flight controls structures that are on the aircraft. Do you understand ?

You focus on the canard is -- and I say this gently -- because you are ignorant.

@gambit, please just leave it ... You're never going to win or get your point across in this thread ... really, it's a futile effort at this point (no one agrees with you! Even me ...) If you have a gripe with a specific member regarding RCS, just PM them ... okay?

 

[gambit]

@gambit, please just leave it ... You're never going to win or get your point across in this thread ... really, it's a futile effort at this point (no one agrees with you! Even me ...) If you have a gripe with a specific member regarding RCS, just PM them ... okay?

Am not interested in 'winning' you guys over. You guys are too far gone for reasons. Am interested in educating the silent readers out there. Chinese claims that are TECHNICALLY wrong must be challenged.

 

[Daniel808]

News for you, son. Look up Operation Bolo. That was when a bunch of 'fat pig' F-4s nearly decimated a flight of agile MIG-21s. And at that time, the F-4s had no guns and dubious missiles.

The qualities of the J-20 that you claimed to make the J-20 'superior' to the F-22 is dubious at best.

AESA radar ? What do YOU know of even basic radar detection principles in the first place ? I dare say -- Nothing. You think that just because one ESA array has 'more' T/R modules than the other that automatically make it better ? What you say are mere generalizations that you read from Chinese forums where the people are equally clueless as you. So am going to give you at least one clue, kid.

There is a percentage of T/R modules -- higher or lower -- that will make an ESA array qualitatively better than the other, and that figure is not lower than %10.

For example...If array A has 1000 T/R modules, array B must have at least %10 greater of T/R modules. Remember, am using %10 only as an example. The real figure ? You will have to find out on your own.

Considering the fact that none of you can explain how the 10-lambda rule affects the design shape of the radomes of the F-22, F-35, and J-20, the odds of you completing the homework assignment I gave you -- is very low.

The point of Operation Bolo is that the PLAAF is a babe while the USAF/USN/USMC combined airpower is a proven combat veteran. So even if the J-20 is somehow a 'superior' fighter, only a fool would bet against US.

You can -- in your shortsightedness -- focus on the pros and cons of the hardware so you can get a lot of 'Thanks' for your posts. Those who are smarter than you focus on the pros and cons of the forces.

That's your own baseless personal assumption that the one ESA radar have better qualitative than the others.
Unless, you can give me a Credible source that say J-20/F-22 ESA radar is better qualitatively than the others.

If you cannot give the source.
Than we need to conclude, that both (J-20 and F-22) of them have on par ESA radar in terms of qualitatively.
So with both have on par qualitatively, the one that have more T/R modules is the one that have better detection range. And that's J-20 ESA radar.

The main problem that many people in here argue you is because your personal assumptions, not formula that you use (many people know about it).

For example :
Yeah everybody in here know that 2+2=4.
But where do you get the "2"
That's the problem, not the formula.
Because the "2" is all based on your personal assumptions.

There is no one argue that "General formula" you use, but they argue your personal assumptions that you use in your posts.

By the way, Interesting that YOU (my mister viet) don't disscuss about Fuel Payload between J-20 and F-22.
That's the one of the most Important thing in Combat situation, anyway.
Interesting..

 

[Deino]

That's your own baseless personal assumption that the one ESA radar have better qualitative than the others.
Unless, you can give me a Credible source that say J-20/F-22 ESA radar is better qualitatively than the others.

If you cannot give the source.
Than we need to conclude, that both (J-20 and F-22) of them have on par ESA radar in terms of qualitatively.
So with both have on par qualitatively, the one that have more T/R modules is the one that have better detection range. And that's J-20 ESA radar.

The main problem that many people in here argue you is because your personal assumptions, not formula that you use (many people know about it).

For example :
Yeah everybody in here know that 2+2=4.
But where do you get the "2"
That's the problem, not the formula.
Because the "2" is all based on your personal assumptions.

There is no one argue that "General formula" you use, but they argue your personal assumptions that you use in your posts.

By the way, Interesting that YOU (my mister viet) don't disscuss about Fuel Payload between J-20 and F-22.
That's the one of the most Important thing in Combat situation, anyway.
Interesting..

And you surely know and can explain how many TR-modules the J-20 has and why its radar has to be on-par?? Also only asumed most likely!??

 

[Daniel808]

And you surely know and can explain how many TR-modules the J-20 has and why its radar has to be on-par?? Also only asumed most likely!??

I think, you need to ask him first.
How can he assume, the one is better qualitatively than the other one.
and not on par.

 

[Figaro]

WS-15 VCE pre-research

 

[Asoka]

Wow, I just got a negative rating from Deino for calling the_gambler, a troller, while he got a free pass for insulting all our intelligences, for years, with his most stupid drivels.

1.) "Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried-because-he-said-so", and

2.) "J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44", and

3.) "The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20"

And He never got a ban, not even a warning, for all his trollings.

 

[Figaro]

Wow, I just got a negative rating from Deino for calling the_gambler, a troller, while he got a free pass for insulting all our intelligences, for years, with his most stupid drivels.

1.) "Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried", and

2.) "J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44", and

3.) "The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20"

And He never got a ban, not even a warning, for all his trollings.

Gambit has bashed the J-20 from the 2001 prototype to the LRIP birds we see today. He offers scant evidence to back up his assertion and constantly criticizes other members' opinions via ad-hominem attacks. I really don't see why this is fair. He called me an "idiot" for disagreeing with his pseudo-science. Double standard ...

"Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried"
US fifth generation designs incorporated canards; although this was later dropped due to aerodynamic/FCS issues. It has absolutely nothing to do with RCS ... nice try
"J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44"
I'm sorry. Is today's date October 10, 2017 or is it actually January 5, 2011? Reminds me of the J-20 is an interceptor-bomber stupidity
"The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20"
The F-35 is so superior that it has set American taxpayers back 1 trillion dollars and has countless glitches/issues within its subsystems. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most F-35s are grounded and declared not operationally ready by the USAF itself? It appears that America has taken 2 steps forward with the F-22 and 3 steps back with the F-35 ... he is one of those F-35 apologists. Now tell me where's the 2400 F-35's promised by Congress just a couple years ago

 

[ozranger]

Gambit has bashed the J-20 from the 2001 prototype to the LRIP birds we see today. He offers scant evidence to back up his assertion and constantly criticizes other members' opinions via ad-hominem attacks. I really don't see why this is fair. He called me an "idiot" for disagreeing with his pseudo-science. Double standard ...

"Canard-is-not-stealthy-and-you-CAN'T-make-it-stealthy-no-matter-how-hard-you-tried"
US fifth generation designs incorporated canards; although this was later dropped due to aerodynamic/FCS issues. It has absolutely nothing to do with RCS ... nice try
"J-20-is-a-COPY-of-Mig-1.44"
I'm sorry. Is today's date October 10, 2017 or is it actually January 5, 2011? Reminds me of the J-20 is an interceptor-bomber stupidity
"The-Design-of-F-35-is-FAR-SUPERIOR-than-J-20"
The F-35 is so superior that it has set American taxpayers back 1 trillion dollars and has countless glitches/issues within its subsystems. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most F-35s are grounded and declared not operationally ready by the USAF itself? It appears that America has taken 2 steps forward with the F-22 and 3 steps back with the F-35 ... he is one of those F-35 apologists. Now tell me where's the 2400 F-35's promised by Congress just a couple years ago

Just ignore his/her posts and never reply. Let's talk about aircraft design, RCS, aerodynamics and alike, those interesting stuff although we are no experts, instead of stupid topics like advantageous experience of US air force to which diverted by him/her.

BTW I sort of agree with the US air force that F-35 is somewhat more stealthy than F-22 for, from my understanding, the use of DSI instead of Caret intakes as the small gap between the Caret intake's splitter plate and the fuselage horribly falls into the range of resonance with incoming radiation in centimeter band. F-35's problem is on its maneuverability, too sluggish to be an eligible air superiority fighter due to energy bleeding.

 

[Figaro]

Just ignore his/her posts and never reply. Let's talk about aircraft design, RCS, aerodynamics and alike, those interesting stuff although we are no experts, instead of stupid topics like advantageous experience of US air force to which diverted by him/her.

BTW I sort of agree with the US air force that F-35 is somewhat more stealthy than F-22 for, from my understanding, the use of DSI instead of Caret intakes as the small gap between the Caret intake's splitter plate and the fuselage horribly falls into the range of resonance with incoming radiation in centimeter band. F-35's problem is on its maneuverability, too sluggish to be an eligible air superiority fighter due to energy bleeding.

F-22 is definitely stealthier than F-35 ... almost all studies prove that. The rest of your points are valid. Particularly from heads on, F-22 is magnitudes stealthier than F-35.