Pepsi Cola
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2016
- Messages
- 327
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Yes, I'm familiar with how they work. I was asking why they chose that particular detonation chord and particularly that pattern. The jet is impeccably designed in almost every single aspect to reduce RCS and adding that zig-zag detchord pattern seems to defeat the purpose a little bit. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, I think it's basically like an antenna, if you think about it, and adding an antenna to an already heavily electronically filled glass canopy seems like a step back to otherwise a lot of effort to reduce RCS. I was wondering if they ever spoke about it and if it might be temporary or if it is indeed the final system they're going with.
Head seat spikes are a thing of the distant past. That's probably the WORST way to crack a canopy and makes it 10 times more of a violent and dangerous experience for a very stressed pilot when it needs to be as least stressful as possible. I'm glad they didn't go anywhere near that.
That's what I was getting at. If the detchord is the way the Chinese engineers wanted to go, I would've thought they would have designed a lot less conspicuous layout like the F-35 or even used the full canopy jettison system.
Not that the F-35 is the standard to go by and neither is the F-22 which incorporates the full canopy jettison system, there are pros and cons for both systems but if we do look closely at the F-35, its detchord not only runs down the middle of the top part in one straight line like you mentioned (reducing as much chord as possible), but it travels along the front and bottom rails where the glass connects to the frame and back. It essentially splits the glass into two leafs from the frame. Kind of in-between a full canopy jettison and a zig-zag detchord just on the top but more importantly, it's less conspicuous.
It seems they took a lot of considerations into designing it not only for effectiveness, but specifically for lower RCS and any additional electronic emissions from the glass cockpit. They also had to consider that one of the three models is a carrier-based variant and the STOVL aircraft has a greater risk of dropping into the water. A detchord system is much better suited for that than a full canopy jettison. The latter doesn't work so well when the aircraft is submerged in water.
But even with all those safety and water considerations, it seems they also made an effort to minimize something that would seem to increase the aircraft's RCS, and that's what I was wondering about the J-20.
The cord is inside so I don't think it really has any impacts on the RCS, especially with the stealth coating on the canopy.
I don't know what caused the design differences. My guess is the US thought the cord would impede the pilot's sights, so they run it as little as possible. The PLAAF probably looked for the most effective design with the most surface area to break the glass.
Last edited:
