Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[rcrmj]

I mean simple as that
Mirage-3
View attachment 430419
and this with canards
View attachment 430420


If we remove CANARDS from J-20 without tvc engine, can J-20 maneuverable as with canards i assume its not

J-20 was designed as canard config + TVC, why you keep assuming stupid things? seriously what is your point?

 

[Figaro]

J-20 was designed as canard config + TVC, why you keep assuming stupid things? seriously what is your point?

It was actually designed to achieve supermaneuverability (one of the 4S’s) without TVC, good foresight by CAC. Now just imagine what the J-20 could do if they added TVC to an already supermaneuverable design

 

[rcrmj]

So is the F-16.

you are just for the sake of it, thats it``` J-20 is a state-of-art 5th gen fighter as effective as F-22 some aspects are superior, and its a fact, you can debate pros and cons to death with your basement mentality, but you cant change the fact as simple as that.

if F-22 has same head-on vertical cross-section RCS than F-16, then those scientists can be as "brilliant" as your "knowledge" in this matter

 

[gambit]

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!??

His style of debate is that his assertion is automatically correct -- regardless of sources. And if you cannot disprove him, he is correct.

 

[Asoka]

It was actually designed to achieve supermaneuverability (one of the 4S’s) without TVC, good foresight by CAC. Now just imagine what the J-20 could do if they added TVC to an already supermaneuverable design

J-20 HAS 3-D TVC along with WS-15 engines.

 

[gambit]

if F-22 has same head-on vertical cross-section RCS than F-16, then those scientists can be as "brilliant" as your "knowledge" in this matter

Here is what you said...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-652#post-9931010

in terms of in head-on radar cross-section J-20 is quite close to F-22

You got any supporting sources for that ? The kind that have hard numbers ?

If not, then you missed my point about the F-16.

 

[rcrmj]

Here is what you said...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chen...news-discussions.111471/page-652#post-9931010

You got any supporting sources for that ? The kind that have hard numbers ?

If not, then you missed my point about the F-16.

and your sources being ? ````, c'mon gimme the figures

 

[gambit]

and your sources being ? ````, c'mon gimme the figures

Throughout the debates about 'stealth', of which I have proved that you guys do not know what you are talking about, I have always insisted that everyone avoid making assertions without supporting sources.

The frontal aspect of any aircraft is usually the lowest compares to other aspects ON THE SAME AIRCRAFT. If you are going to make an assertion that compares to another aircraft, it would be more credible if you can provide supporting sources.

When I made the comment about the F-16, that was to point out the error of your argument. Get it ? Probably not.

Let's talk about aircraft design, RCS, aerodynamics and alike, those interesting stuff although we are no experts,...

But you got no problems making assertions that cannot be supported by the laws of nature.

Yah...Real consistent here...

 

[rcrmj]

Throughout the debates about 'stealth', of which I have proved that you guys do not know what you are talking about, I have always insisted that everyone avoid making assertions without supporting sources.

The frontal aspect of any aircraft is usually the lowest compares to other aspects ON THE SAME AIRCRAFT. If you are going to make an assertion that compares to another aircraft, it would be more credible if you can provide supporting sources.

When I made the comment about the F-16, that was to point out the error of your argument. Get it ? Probably not.


But you got no problems making assertions that cannot be supported by the laws of nature.

Yah...Real consistent here...

you seem to be very irritated with other people's assertion, but you should really look at mirror````
J-20 is a mock-up
J-20 is a copy of Mig-41
J-20 is a large interceptor/bomber
F-35 is far more superior than J-20````and your funny assertion goes on and on

we are on the site for almost a decade now````we know how igorant, stubborn and Sinophobia you are, and yet your stubborness keeps denying that lol`````if you are really into "correcting" other people's "wrong" technological claims without prejudice, then you should be bombarding Indian sections like no tommorow, but only picking on Chinese````old man, how petty and sad are you really in real life???

 

[gambit]

you seem to be very irritated with other people's assertion, but you should really look at mirror

Not 'irritated'. Amused.

J-20 is a mock-up

Never said that. In fact, quite often I praised the Chinese engineers for their creation.

J-20 is a copy of Mig-41

Never said that. In fact, I said the J-20 is a cleaned-up version of the MIG 1.44. Big difference.

J-20 is a large interceptor/bomber

Never commented about the J-20's mission.

You are 0-3, buddy.

F-35 is far more superior than J-20

That I believe. You guys got nothing to prove otherwise. And please, spare us the usual tripe about range and speed. There are more to what make an aircraft a superior platform to its competition.

...and your funny assertion goes on and on

You guys actually have the funnier ones.

But let us continue on the technical front...

In designing a 'radar low observable' body, there are three rules to consider...

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation.

No rule is more important than the others, although rule 1 set the initial environment for the other two.

The sphere is considered the 'stealthiest' body because no matter its orientation to the seeking radar, it will exhibit the same reflective behaviors which will result in the same radar cross section ( RCS ). This make the sphere the ideal radar calibration and reference body.

http://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1

The Lincoln Calibration Sphere 1, or LCS-1, is a large aluminium sphere in Earth orbit since 6 May 1965. It is the oldest spacecraft still in use, having lasted for over 50 years. It was launched along with the Lincoln Experimental Satellite-2 on a Titan IIIA. It is technically the oldest operational spacecraft, but it has no power supply or fuel; it is merely a metal sphere. It has been used for radar calibration since its launch.

For the J-20's hyper nationalist supporters...

Are you saying that the two bodies above will exhibit the same RCS under the three control rules ?

The J-20 has eight major structures protruding into the radar beam. The F-22 and F-35, each has six.

 

[Deino]

Guys... And now I close This Thread for further cleaning.

You Can argue, You Can debate even cotroversly, but I will longer accept twisting words, national rants, personell insults aven More wrong quotes ...

Thread closed until news appear.

Deino

J-20 HAS 3-D TVC along with WS-15 engines.

BS again without any prof. You still don't want to accept that both your theories failed esp. with The appearance of the very First WS-10-powered prototype.

Stubborn until The end.

Deino

 

[cirr]

J-20 with WS-10X

 

[grey boy 2]

J-20 with WS-10X

View attachment 430600

Beautiful bird, the tail looks different with "WS-10X domestic engine" also a minor difference as the below highlight part

 

[cirr]

Beautiful bird, the tail looks different with "WS-10X domestic engine" also a minor difference as the below highlight part

There are a number of other differences if you look closely

 

[Deino]

There are a number of other differences if you look closely

On the right side it does not have the serial 2021 painted. And indeed the rear part & intakes look different.

@cirr ... Pardon for the mis-rating. I corrected it already.