Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[yantong1980]

Arrogant? You should go look in the mirror. I am a USAF veteran, F-111 (Cold War) then F-16 (Desert Storm). What do you have? As far as I am concerned, you are not allowed to use the word 'bird' in talking about jets. Such language is reserved for those who have actually been directly involved in aviation, which am quite certain you do not qualify.

Dude, your veterans things doesn't impress anyone here, keep that stuff for yourself, same with your cocky attitude. It's you the one that should check yourself into mirror.

 

[phancong]

Dude, your veterans things doesn't impress anyone here, keep that stuff for yourself, same with your cocky attitude. It's you the one that should check yourself into mirror.

let him be the know all expert in everything on PDF. China have all the tool and facility to decide how to build their stealth fighter jet. Gammot expertise have no direct impact on China jet fighter development program.

 

[Ultima Thule]

This is why I enjoy debating you guys so much -- you do not think.

Nowhere did I even implied that the DSI design is 'bad' for a low radar observable body. The DSI 'bump' does not make up the intake itself. It is a COMPONENT of the entire intake SYSTEM. The DSI 'bump' follows the intake design no matter where the intake is positioned on the aircraft, like how this F-16 was modified to have the DSI intake system.

http://aviationintel.com/fast-history-lockheeds-diverterless-supersonic-inlet-testbed-f-16/

As far as beyond visual situations goes, my post 11875 demonstrate exactly such a situation.

Arrogant? You should go look in the mirror. I am a USAF veteran, F-111 (Cold War) then F-16 (Desert Storm). What do you have? As far as I am concerned, you are not allowed to use the word 'bird' in talking about jets. Such language is reserved for those who have actually been directly involved in aviation, which am quite certain you do not qualify.

Your post in last page clearly states that DSI is bad for stealth as you comparing F-22 intake geometry to J-20 intake geometry with pics, and don't be liar @gambit

@gambit in your post @gambit

Over the yrs, a lot of noise were produced by the ignorant about the supposedly 'non-stealthy' classic diverter plate intakes of the F-22 vs the supposedly more 'advanced' diverterless DSI 'bump' on the J-20

 

[phancong]

Your post in last page clearly states that DSI is bad for stealth as you comparing F-22 intake geometry to J-20 intake geometry with pics, and don't be liar @gambit I suggest you check out the RT video on YouTube show how f35 can easily detect by unknown German company with their passive radar over 100 km without f35 pilot knowledge of the F35 being track for a long distance. Stealth technology is overrated.

@gambit in your post @gambit

 

[Ultima Thule]

What sir

 

[phancong]

Your post in last page clearly states that DSI is bad for stealth as you comparing F-22 intake geometry to J-20 intake geometry with pics, and don't be liar @gambit

@gambit in your post @gambit

Check out the RT video just posted today on YouTube about the mighty f35 been track and detected by passive radar in Germany over 100 km by an unknown German company.

What sir

I just want you check out RT news reported today last yr f35 stealth fighter jets were tracked and detected by a groundbase passive radar during the German airshow.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Check out the RT video just posted today on YouTube about the mighty f35 been track and detected by passive radar in Germany over 100 km by an unknown German company.


I just want you check out RT news reported today last yr f35 stealth fighter jets were tracked and detected by a groundbase passive radar during the German airshow.

100 km is nothing when enemy detect F-35 from 100 km, its already game over for the enemy (stand off/BVR weapons launches)

 

[phancong]

100 km is nothing when enemy detect F-35 from 100 km, its already game over for the enemy (stand off/BVR weapons launches)

Yeah but stealth fighters jet isn't invincible in any war with any near peer enemy, f35 detected by a unknown company with unsophisticated makeshift of passive radar, you can only imagine Russia and China with their sophisticated radar system waiting on F35 flight into their airspace during the war.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Yeah but stealth fighters jet isn't invincible in any war with any near peer enemy, f35 detected by a unknown company with unsophisticated makeshift of passive radar, you can only imagine Russia and China with their sophisticated radar system waiting on F35 flight into their airspace during the war.

no, Stealth mean late detection but in network environments its lose its credibility Much

 

[phancong]

no, Stealth mean late detection but in network environments its lose its credibility Much

Just prove Gambit debate about more stealth or less stealth have no real impact on how or when stealth fighters can be track or detect in the battlefield.

 

[gambit]

Your post in last page clearly states that DSI is bad for stealth as you comparing F-22 intake geometry to J-20 intake geometry with pics, and don't be liar @gambit

@gambit in your post @gambit

Clearly? I have been patient with you but now that you twisted my words, the gloves are off.

Nowhere in my post 11875 'clearly' stated that the DSI 'bump' is bad for 'stealth'.

Over the yrs, a lot of noise were produced by the ignorant about the supposedly 'non-stealthy' classic diverter plate intakes of the F-22 vs the supposedly more 'advanced' diverterless DSI 'bump' on the J-20.

The ignorant, which includes you, usually claimed that the classic diverter plates are bad for 'stealth'. In other words, my comment that you highlighted is actually the opposite of what you twisted of what I said.

This image...

...Is only to show that under most flight conditions, BOTH the diverter plates and the DSI 'bumps' are irrelevant to RCS calculations. Nowhere did I even implied that one is superior to the other.

The liar is YOU.

 

[riscol]

https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoi...racked-the-f-35-jet-in-2018-from-a-pony-farm/

German radar maker Hensoldt claims to have tracked two F-35s for 150 kilometers. China and Russia with their sophisticated radar tech should have no problem detecting it from a much bigger range.

 

[Su33KUB]

I drive car, doesn't mean I know how to make cars, nor how to evaluate which car design is better. Especially when the car you never touched, such as J-20.

None of us here knew J-20 much, just some pictures, which means nothing.

you are talking absolutes, that is the reason people sometimes do not understand each other, Gambit never said DSI intakes are less or more stealthy in absolute terms, both systems have stealth treatment, both have compromises, the Caret intake type requires more RAM, more maintenance, more money, it is harder to make, Lockheed chose the DSI to replace it on F-35 simple because is cheaper to maintain and make, not because is more stealthy, all shapes do reflect radar, flat plates or bumps will reflect radar, the advantages of flat plates is they send a strong signal only in one direction, a bump or sphere, send the signal in all directions, but it weakens the signal because it distributes it into many directions.

From a top view the F-22 shields the intake duct, the DSI does not do that as well.

In general terms, J-20 does not follow the rules for stealth treatment as F-22 does, but do not take it in absolutes, it was done intentional, it is not because the Chinese engineers do not know them, they do understand them but stealth does not go all the time well with aerodynamics, plus stealth imposes a weight penalty, that requiere more powerful engines, thus the Chinese engineers needed to balance aerodynamics, the engine thrust available with stealth, they sometimes gave priority to stealth, sometimes to aerodynamics and engine thrust, where you have less stealthy features is because aerodynamics and engine thrust were higher priority, its canards, ventral fins and the rear part of it are such parts.

The DSI intake is lighter than the caret one thus in order to save weight, it was better for China

 

[phancong]

you are talking absolutes, that is the reason people sometimes do not understand each other, Gambit never said DSI intakes are less or more stealthy in absolute terms, both systems have stealth treatment, both have compromises, the Caret intake type requires more RAM, more maintenance, more money, it is harder to make, Lockheed chose the DSI to replace it on F-35 simple because is cheaper to maintain and make, not because is more stealthy, all shapes do reflect radar, flat plates or bumps will reflect radar, the advantages of flat plates is they send a strong signal only in one direction, a bump or sphere, send the signal in all directions, but it weakens the signal because it distributes it into many directions.

From a top view the F-22 shields the intake duct, the DSI does not do that as well.

In general terms, J-20 does not follow the rules for stealth treatment as F-22 does, but do not take it in absolutes, it was done intentional, it is not because the Chinese engineers do not know them, they do understand them but stealth does not go all the time well with aerodynamics, plus stealth imposes a weight penalty, that requiere more powerful engines, thus the Chinese engineers needed to balance aerodynamics, the engine thrust available with stealth, they sometimes gave priority to stealth, sometimes to aerodynamics and engine thrust, where you have less stealthy features is because aerodynamics and engine thrust were higher priority, its canards, ventral fins and the rear part of it are such parts

So by your own words Gambit talk about more or less stealth jets just a bunch of nonsense? Up to the people develop the stealth jet know what best to go forward with the development of their choice?

 

[Su33KUB]

So by your own words Gambit talk about more or less stealth jets just a bunch of nonsense? Up to the people develop the stealth jet know what best to go forward with the development of their choice?

they have to choose priorities, stealth imposes many conditions that not always are the best solution for aerodynamics, for example the internal weapons bays make for a much bigger and heavier aircraft if they want to keep space for fuel to put it mildly F-35 weights more than 5 tonnes more than a F-16A, thus they need a much more powerful engine than a F-100, the F135 is almost 80% more powerful than f100.

the F-35 weighs as much as an F-15 at empty weight, and full max weight, by 1970 standards it is a heavyweight fighter, F-22 weighs almost 6 tonnes more than an F-15 at empty weight.


That require much more thrust to offset such constraigns, China unless at this moment they are powering the J-20 with WS-15 with full thrust vectoring nozzles, it has an operational fighter just in name, the J-20 to operate really as a truly F-22 counterpart needs engines that can allow a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio at normal take off, it has very likely a normal take off of 28-30 tonnes, so minimum a 14 tonnes thrust engine, otherwise that extra weight and stealth requirements need to be reduced, so they simply went the way where they only prioritized stealth in the front of the aircraft, leaving the rear with much less stealth, the ventral fins and canards plus the rounded engine nacelles at the rear of the J-20 are solutions to help the aircraft with all the extra weight and lack of thrust