Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong. Supersonic and supercruise are not the same thing. They are not even synonymous.Interesting, the J-20 was referred to as China's first "supersonic stealth fighter." So the J-20 can supercruise after all it seems.
The problem with this idiotic criticism is that no one -- not even China -- want to fight a near peer adversary.Yeah but stealth fighters jet isn't invincible in any war with any near peer enemy,...
And imagination is all they have.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.
Whatever I'm not interest in your expertise.Wrong. Supersonic and supercruise are not the same thing. They are not even synonymous.
Supersonic is faster than Mach. Supercruise is faster than Mach without using afterburner.
The problem with this idiotic criticism is that no one -- not even China -- want to fight a near peer adversary.
How do you not fight a near peer adversary? Two ways:
- By actually avoiding a near peer adversary
- By being so far ahead that there is no near peer adversary
Using Europe as an example. There are many countries in Europe and most of them are near peer to each other. Of those who are near peer status to each other, of course there are gradations among them as to who have numerical quantity over who else, but overall, in terms of technology and quantity, they are near peers. The same can be said to Africa and the ME.
And imagination is all they have.
The F-22, F-35, and B-2 do not need to be 'invincible', just difficult enough. You do not know what you are talking about.
Of course you are. Do not try to deny it. Nowhere else in the Chinese forums will you find information like I presented here. Since '09, no one have taken what I posted, independently checked, returned to the forum, and proved I misled the readers. In your case, what I posted went whooooooshed over your head so you have to act like you are not interested. But we know you are...Whatever I'm not interest in your expertise.
Yes Phancong. A American stealth fighter is more effective against for example Finland or Zimbabwe than it will be against Russia or China due to the near peer status we call it because on military matters Russia and China are more likely to face F-22 for example and have spend much more resources to diminish stealth fighter's ability compared to what we would call non-near peer player who doesn't care and will not have stealth fighter used against them.
But detecting F-35 recently they didn't mention how they detect and quality of tracking. Maybe they also can't target F-35 just detect presence. Anyway too little information provided to say anything important about stealth. But of course many resources are used by some very clever people to diminish and counter improvements to stealth technology. Only in a war can we know how effective everything is.
When Chinese said you schooled me, it's modesty. I think it's culture difference.It is good enough. The problem with you is that you allowed your nationalistic passion takes over your critical thinking skills. A behavior common to the Chinese members here. And I say that kindly.
Let us take a look at this illustration again since you repeatedly failed to understand it...
Somewhere in those clusters of voltage spikes, there are spikes from doors and windows. But can you see them? Can you distinguish which spike came from which structure? No, you cannot and neither can any radar system, including Chinese ones.
You can call the classic diverter plates as inferior to the DSI 'bump' all you want but in the larger scheme of things, its supposedly 'inferior' design is irrelevant.
There is something called 'interference' and there are two types of interference:
- Constructive
- Destructive
In designing a low radar observable body, we want DESTRUCTIVE interference. It means to cancel out.
https://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_2/Sec5_2.htm
Are the signals from the F-22's classic diverter plates canceled out by signals from other structures nearby? Only Lockheed knows.
The diverter plate is not a good design? Only in your delusions. The bottom line is that the F-22's intakes did not matter one whit.
On the other hand, unlike the F-22's intake diverter plates, the J-20's canards are visible most of the time in most flight aspect angles. Their positions on the fuselage do not make possible destructive interference. The canards are CONSTANTLY exposed. So when experts commented about the canards as being negative for 'stealth', they do not comment because they are anti-China but do so from the laws of physics.
The problem for you guys is that I posted these explanations REPEATEDLY since '09. New Chinese members comes and predictably, each of them thinks he posted something new and predictably, each got debunked by me. Just like you got schooled.
stealth is not invisibility, it is an attempt to make harder for the opposition to detect them, all radars will detect J-20 or F-22, the problem is always the range, light as well as radar are electromagnetic waves, they have diffraction, in few words light as well as radar bend their paths, light when diffracted by a prism has all the colors with different angle of diffraction, destructive interference does not mean radar will be silenced, it means in some parts you have a stronger signal in others no signal.When Chinese said you schooled me, it's modesty. I think it's culture difference.
Every intake on F-22 or J-20 will use absorbing materials and destructive interference and some other technologies which I don't know to reduce reflection. What they can do depends on the technologies they mastered which none of us knew exactly.
The canards will not move much in most cases, the overall impact is uncertain since we don't know the composition neither.
There are a lot of new technologies after F-22 was born, some of them may be adopted in F-35, or J-20 which none of us knew exactly.
Without accurate intelligence, it's very hard to make a judgement just base on with or without canards. The overall RCS depends on overall body design, as well as radar, composition, absorbing materials and many other things. Canard is just one of the many.
Regarding Russia, China, and U.S. All three countries use AEW&C heavily. AEW&C see stealthy jet from different angle. As I pointed it previously, stealthy jet can't fly too high or too fast, otherwise it will be detected from further distance by infrared detectors array. AEW&C can fly much higher. You can imagine, the angle is different, J-20, F-22 back are exposed to AEW&C.
Also, Russa Su-35 use L band as well (Su-57 not sure). None of the stealthy jets were designed for L band, it will be detected anyway.
Chinese AEW&C use dual band if I remember right. It's not hard to guess why they use dual band. F-22 is not as stealthy as before when facing Chinese dual band AEW&C.
You are doing exactly what amateurs do, which is to focus on one thing as if that thing is all that mattered. You saw the DSI intake design as somehow 'superior' to the classic diverter plate so...A-ha...!!! The F-22 will be inferior to the J-20. That is not how it works.Every intake on F-22 or J-20 will use absorbing materials and destructive interference and some other technologies which I don't know to reduce reflection. What they can do depends on the technologies they mastered which none of us knew exactly.
The canards do not have to move.The canards will not move much in most cases, the overall impact is uncertain since we don't know the composition neither.
IR is not the solution to 'stealth' any more than the supposedly 'passive' radar can. As for AWACS, no one have more experience in using AWACS in combat than US and that includes how to evade AWACS.Regarding Russia, China, and U.S. All three countries use AEW&C heavily. AEW&C see stealthy jet from different angle. As I pointed it previously, stealthy jet can't fly too high or too fast, otherwise it will be detected from further distance by infrared detectors array. AEW&C can fly much higher. You can imagine, the angle is different, J-20, F-22 back are exposed to AEW&C.
Long wavelengths have been debated here before and I debunked their claimed efficacy many times over. When you broadcast in whatever long wavelengths, I will see you and take evasive measures before you can see me, to put it simply.Also, Russa Su-35 use L band as well (Su-57 not sure). None of the stealthy jets were designed for L band, it will be detected anyway.
Chinese AEW&C use dual band if I remember right. It's not hard to guess why they use dual band. F-22 is not as stealthy as before when facing Chinese dual band AEW&C.
In your image, none of the jets are stealthy at all. In this angle Su-27, F15, J-20, F-22, F35 make no difference at all. You are exaggerating.You are doing exactly what amateurs do, which is to focus on one thing as if that thing is all that mattered. You saw the DSI intake design as somehow 'superior' to the classic diverter plate so...A-ha...!!! The F-22 will be inferior to the J-20. That is not how it works.
In this image...
The F-22's diverter plates are not visible but the J-20's intakes are clearly visible. Yes, we can see the J-20's intakes are treated with absorbers -- the darker grey areas -- but absorbers do not zero any diffraction signals, only reduce their intensity. Whatever that radiate off into free space WILL interact with the rest of the jet.
The F-22's intake diverter plates and the J-20's DSI 'bumps' do not matter. The intakes themselves -- are.
I do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp even when photographic evident are aplenty.
The canards do not have to move.
The word I have been using for yrs on PDF is 'contributor'. You have to understand that in the context of designing a low radar observable body, EVERYTHING contributes to final RCS. If a structure, no matter how small like a rivet head or how large like a fin, is 'seen' by the radar, it is a contributor to that temporary RCS value as calculated by the radar computer. As the jet maneuvers, its RCS fluctuates because various structures' visibility changes. But as long as a structure have any chance of being exposed in the radar stream, it contributes to that RCS calculation.
If you think I used the word 'contributor' with no technical validity, think again...
https://www.science.gov/topicpages/r/radar+cross-section+rcs
Typical vehicle components are also discussed, together with their contribution to total vehicle RCS and their individual signature sensitivities.
Do you see the highlighted? Vehicle components -- like the canards -- adds up to total vehicle RCS.
When the J-20 maneuvers, the canards will move, no matter how slightly...
- Control of QUANTITY of radiators
- Control of ARRAY of radiators
- Control of MODES of radiation
...The canards will fall under rule two: Control of ARRAY of radiators.
If a canard moves just a few centimeters to maneuver the jet, any radar signal that exit that canard will impact nearby structure in different angles, changing 'total vehicle RCS', even if just for one second. We do not know it, but that one second maybe just long enough to reveal the J-20.
So when experts opined that the J-20's canards are negative to 'stealth', you may argue they are being hyperbolic, but they are not technically in error.
IR is not the solution to 'stealth' any more than the supposedly 'passive' radar can. As for AWACS, no one have more experience in using AWACS in combat than US and that includes how to evade AWACS.
Long wavelengths have been debated here before and I debunked their claimed efficacy many times over. When you broadcast in whatever long wavelengths, I will see you and take evasive measures before you can see me, to put it simply.