Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[siegecrossbow]

Link to a superior quality video by GoodBoy from CJDBY.net:

Ïò×æ¹ú»ã±¨(1)-J20³¬µÍ¿Õ»ú¶¯±íÑÝ(2.26-27)-¿Õ¾ü°æ-³¬¼¶´ó±¾Óª¾üÊÂÂÛ̳-×î¾ßÓ°ÏìÁ¦¾üÊÂÂÛ̳

 

[marshall]

Link to video from the 27th.

The Good:

Couple of ultra tight figure 8s from 4:40 onwards.
æ*¼20-27日机动视频 - 视频 - 优酷视频 - 在线观看

Those turns weren't that tight. it's obvious they aren't pushing it. It actually looked underpowered if you ask me. Each turn was over 10 seconds and those 8s you're talking about seemed like it was gaining lost speed from the last turn before doing another tight turn. If it were loaded with missiles, with all else being equal, it would lose in a dogfight. It absolutely needs the WS-15.

 

[gambit]

Why am I not surprised you would bring up yet another irrelevant out-of-context red-herring? The point is to maintain maximum stealth in a threat environment. The speculation was about the development of a FBW flight mode to do just that. Notice the use of the term FBW (Fly By Wire)...which is basically computer control of flight surfaces...something already mentioned even though you find it necessary to say is wrong while saying it is right at the same time. LOL

It is 'irrelevant' to you simply because you do not understand despite the effort at dumbing down the concept as much as possible. I cannot dumb it down any further. If the canards are active flight control elements, then your speculations are simply put -- wrong. Creating a FBW 'mode' to 'lock' them in place to reduce their RCS contributorships would reduce the J-20's maneuverability, if not make it depart from controlled flight altogether.

Like I said, all you are doing is cobbling together words and phrases that you have misconceptions about in trying to present a facade of knowledge.

 

[gambit]

Considering the context in which you are referencing the lambda rule, you could propose to the US Air Force that IRST probes should be made much larger...like 5 feet wide...this will make them more stealthy, according to you, since you posted this little factoid in the context of the above message from "Martian2" about a non-faceted spheroidal IRST. I'm sure you can convince China's communist government to finance your proposal to the US Air Force.

Wrong. The IRST's curvature already conformed to the 10-lambda rule. No need to make it larger. This is a clear indicator that neither of you understand what it means.

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

Not according to me... But your fellow Martin2's logic.

Nope, it is your logic.

Matin2 says the IRST is clearly un stealth on T-50.

You can go take a look at F-35. It has a much more advanced sensor called EOTS (Electro Optical Targeting System). It combines IRST and targeting system into one. Also, it is a lot stealthier!!!

J-20 will have EOTS too on the later model, perhaps 2003, or 2004 !!!


http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...3&tbnw=151&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0


See the gold diamond??? That is EOTS, that is called stealth sensor!!! Not the round shape crap on T-50 !!!

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...8&tbnw=157&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0

 

[DARKY]

At Gambit, no one cares about your irrelevant diagrams.

The bottom line is very simple. A giant round IRST sphere is not stealthy and it is not the same thing as stealthy saw-toothed edges. No amount of text or diagrams will convince anyone otherwise. Stop wasting our time trying to claim something that is not true.

Your insistence that IRST = saw-toothed edges only makes you look like a stubborn ignorant fool.

Hence If the IRST is a giant round object.. then the canopy is even a bigger super giant.

As for EOTS.. They are used on drones and helicopters.. and are not known for good range figures... and are mostly used to attack ground targets from close ranges.... Best of luck exposing J-20 to shoulder SAM fire...

I was of the opinion the J-20 isn't an Air-superiority fighter and the EOTS on it would make it stronger.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Those turns weren't that tight. it's obvious they aren't pushing it. It actually looked underpowered if you ask me. Each turn was over 10 seconds and those 8s you're talking about seemed like it was gaining lost speed from the last turn before doing another tight turn. If it were loaded with missiles, with all else being equal, it would lose in a dogfight. It absolutely needs the WS-15.

Each turn was over 10 second... How did you calculate that? Each 180 degree turn (the one with reference) was around 9 seconds tops. Not bad for AL-31 engines.

Also I was talking about figure 8s, a type of maneuver, at not 8 second turns.

 

[Sasquatch]

 

[Sasquatch]

 

[Sasquatch]

Thanks for the video siege.

 

[conworldus]

I am getting a feeling that the first batch of the J-20 won't have vector thrust...

 

[HongWu]

I am getting a feeling that the first batch of the J-20 won't have vector thrust...

That is true, but the first batch will be mass produced by second half of 2013!


By 2015, we'll have several regiments of J-20 and start mass producing the improved block with WS-15 engines!

 

[marshall]

Wrong. The IRST's curvature already conformed to the 10-lambda rule. No need to make it larger. This is a clear indicator that neither of you understand what it means.

You're the one who insinuated the non-faceted spheroidal IRST of the PAK FA could be larger according to the lambda rule not me. Nice try at role reversal there Houdini but no cigar. I suggested you had an interesting psychosis at some point but I didn't know it was this bad. LOL Those who have been paying attention know the history behind that statement.

Btw, if, as you suggest, the IRST's curvature already conforms to the lambda rule, what radar bands are you referring to exactly? The IRST looks to be somewhere between 22cm-28cm, typical fighter radar targets X-Band (2.5-3.75cm). Only the lower bound of X-Band somewhat applies and it wouldn't be effective because of the surface discontinuities of the IRST. It would have to be shaped more like a WOK, or better yet like the underwing protrusions of the J-20, for it to be reasonably stealth shaped.

Here's that message again I recently wrote pointing out just 1 of the countless inconsistencies and willful out-of-context irrelevant factoids you pull out at random times. It says it all..

I swear, your eyes are terrible. The T-50/Pak-Fa IRST probe is about the size of a pilot's head. What do you think will happen to a plane's radar signature when you stick a pilot's helmet on the plane's nose (like an IRST probe)? That's right. It's a giant radar reflector. You really are totally clueless.

In radar detection, paradoxical as it sounds, because of the 10-lambda rule, the larger the spheroid structure, it may be appear smaller to the seeking radar. Now go and look up my explanation of the 10-lambda rule.

Considering the context in which you are referencing the lambda rule, you could propose to the US Air Force that IRST probes should be made much larger...like 5 feet wide...this will make them more stealthy, according to you, since you posted this little factoid in the context of the above message from "Martian2" about a non-faceted spheroidal IRST. I'm sure you can convince China's communist government to finance your proposal to the US Air Force.

 

[Zabaniyah]

mmm...the J-20 has a blue hud?

 

[marshall]

It is 'irrelevant' to you simply because you do not understand despite the effort at dumbing down the concept as much as possible. I cannot dumb it down any further. If the canards are active flight control elements, then your speculations are simply put -- wrong. Creating a FBW 'mode' to 'lock' them in place to reduce their RCS contributorships would reduce the J-20's maneuverability, if not make it depart from controlled flight altogether.

Like I said, all you are doing is cobbling together words and phrases that you have misconceptions about in trying to present a facade of knowledge.

Here are the 2 messages I wrote relating to this specific sub-topic...

I've never seen a quote about this but depending on the situation, it makes sense. Last year I speculated that the FBW probably has this sort of flight mode in mind. It would probably allow a few degrees movement and not strictly lock the canards but it would definitely improve the stealth.

Never said it should lock in place. The FBW would compensate with the other control surfaces so that the canard would essentially be a big LERX, albeit able to move a few degrees when necessary. The goal is to minimize canard movement, especially larger angles. Not having this sort of FBW flight mode would validate the main criticisms people have about canards in a threat environment, not that I ever agreed with canards to begin with. Unbeatable for maneuverability though, if done right.

Like I have pointed out before, you have a chip on your shoulders and you increasingly rely on lies and deception. Why am I not surprised given the level of integrity you demonstrate with many of your messages. You don't understand the tactical requirement to minimize the effects of moving canards in a threat environment and are purposely pretending that canard movements cannot be reduced with corresponding compensatory adjustments from the other control surfaces. This is basic logic that any neophyte can understand. In addition, your umpteenth red-herring that it would reduce maneuverability is irrelevant because such a flight mode would be used in a threat environment, as in before you were detected by any of the probable multiple illuminating enemy radars in the vicinity, stealth would be the primary goal at that juncture not maneuverability, since the objective at that point in time would be to get as close as possible to the engagement zone. Like I said, not your forte. Your attempts to prove 1+3=13 is simply wrong.