Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[艹艹艹]

 

[gambit]

ya i guess Chengdu AC should had selected you to be their chief designer for the J-20 instead of yangwei, since u 'obviously' know about what makes and what not makes a plane stealthy than him.

Then why the dihedral on the canards ? The laws of physics must be obeyed, even by Chinese. The dihedral on the canards are necessary for aerodynamics and flight controls, as they are, they rendered the J-20 less obedient to planform alignment than desired. If they are treated in some ways to minimize their contributions to RCS, that is a different issue than planform alignment.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... please do not immediately bash anyone's post only since it does not fit Your opinion.

Gambit is well known to argument, he explains his conclusion even if You have another one. So mocking and bashing is not an argument. If You want, then counter his argument, why the issues he mentions are no concerns in Your opinion, but simply to tell him ignorant, arrogant or stupid is no valid discussion.

Deino

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

Guys ... please do not immediately bash anyone's post only since it does not fit Your opinion.

Gambit is well known to argument, he explains his conclusion even if You have another one. So mocking and bashing is not an argument. If You want, then counter his argument, why the issues he mentions are no concerns in Your opinion, but simply to tell him ignorant, arrogant or stupid is no valid discussion.

Deino

The thing is, he is also well-known to be a China-basher in all matters ranging from military toys to politics.

 

[Asoka]

I do not need to put the F-15 into a measurement chamber to know that the corner reflectors created by the vertical and horizontal stabs made that section of the jet 'unstealthy'. Likewise, I do not need to jump off a tall building to test the law of gravity, either. Based upon what I showed the regular readers of this forum since '09, no one talks about making a 'stealthy' F-16 or J-17 any more.

What you are doing by keep posting about canards are unstealthy is making a fool of yourself. It may be so by putting a canards on the plane makes it LESS stealthy, initially. But anyone who is suggesting that the Chinese engineers are incapable of making those little canards stealthy is seriously foolish. China is putting huge amount of money, and talents into this project. Anyone who is suggesting China cannot overcome the problem of the canards being unstealthy (if it is true) is deluded.

Guys ... please do not immediately bash anyone's post only since it does not fit Your opinion.

Gambit is well known to argument, he explains his conclusion even if You have another one. So mocking and bashing is not an argument. If You want, then counter his argument, why the issues he mentions are no concerns in Your opinion, but simply to tell him ignorant, arrogant or stupid is no valid discussion.

Deino

By suggesting the Chinese engineers can not solve the problem of making the canard stealthy is insulting to all the Chinese. He is making us sound "ignorant, arrogant or stupid". So bashing people is what he is doing.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4Nyrs7wdB

 

[dingyibvs]

The thing is, he is also well-known to be a China-basher in all matters ranging from military toys to politics.

That may be, and I've argued with him plenty, but it doesn't automatically make his statements false. While his opinions may be taken in the context of his overall world view as reflected by his post history, his statements re: planeform alignment are based on science and should be examined for its merits sentence-by-sentence. I for one don't see any obvious contradictions in his statements re: the J-20's alignment issues, but then again I've only had an undergrad EE education and never worked in the industry.

 

[Deino]

The thing is, he is also well-known to be a China-basher in all matters ranging from military toys to politics.

Exactly like some accuse me too. My point is that most of the members who don't agree with him - or me too sometimes - use only the argument "he is a basher", "he is a foreigner", ... but they bring no arguments !

I'm sure the J-20 is a true stealth fighter but I'm also sure that the US with decades of research, test aircraft in numbers and operational experiences are most likely still ahead. Additionally there are indeed a few issues like the canards, the alignment of certain axis, these strange vents on the intakes, the round nozzles without any zig-zag as on the F-35, the open chaff-and-flare boxes on the tails that cannot be ignored.

As such the J-20 again is a stealth fighter IMO, but surely the Chinese way is different to the US ... and that's worth to be discussed.

Some of them - like the canards - can be refuted, since also the NATF-contender had canards and the latest 6th generation from Boeing too, but others at least worth to be discussed. Simply telling to You are a China-basher without understanding while in return avoiding all arguments and not even given a reason why his concerns are no-ones in Your opinion is IMO the best sign of a "fan-boy".

As such all I beg is a civilised discussion with arguing ...

Deino

 

[Asoka]

Then why the dihedral on the canards ? The laws of physics must be obeyed, even by Chinese. The dihedral on the canards are necessary for aerodynamics and flight controls, as they are, they rendered the J-20 less obedient to planform alignment than desired. If they are treated in some ways to minimize their contributions to RCS, that is a different issue than planform alignment.

You simply have no definite proof that the canards or the J-20 is not very stealthy. Since you have no access to it for testing or validation of your claim. So stop presenting your opinions are facts. It's simply laughable to suggest Chinese engineers cannot solve this problem, if there is one.

Do you really think this is a difficult or unsolvable problem? or you just think the Chinese cannot solve it by themselves?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The WS-15 just completed its ground test by August 9th 2015, and its thrust is 12% higher than the original core design which was TWR 10 according to the 2003 document. And the official TWR 11+ WS-15 prototype is ready to start its flight test on the IL-76 platform.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

Exactly like some accuse me too. My point is that most of the members who don't agree with him - or me too sometimes - use only the argument "he is a basher", "he is a foreigner", ... but they bring no arguments !

I'm sure the J-20 is a true stealth fighter but I'm also sure that the US with decades of research, test aircraft in numbers and operational experiences are most likely still ahead. Additionally there are indeed a few issues like the canards, the alignment of certain axis, these strange vents on the intakes, the round nozzles without any zig-zag as on the F-35, the open chaff-and-flare boxes on the tails that cannot be ignored.

As such the J-20 again is a stealth fighter IMO, but surely the Chinese way is different to the US ... and that's worth to be discussed.

ome of them - like the canards - can be refuted, since also the NATF-contender had canards and the latest 6th generation from Boeing too, but others at least worth to be discussed. Simply telling to You are a China-basher without understanding while in return avoiding all arguments and not even given a reason why his concerns are no-ones in Your opinion is IMO the best sign of a "fan-boy".

As such all I beg is a civilised discussion with arguing ...

Deino

From all the visual cues we have, the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4NyuEJ8YO



I dont have to because he IS making bold claims with no definitive proof by admiting:

Nevertheless, I have consistently been fair and advised everyone from making definitive statements simply because the measurement data for all these aircrafts are not public information.

and by the magical analytic powers of his bare eyes with the dihedral angle of the canards as the centrepiece of his arguement(of which he has no measurements to argue with) :

From all the visual cues we have, the planform alignment of the J-20 is not 'as good' compare to the the F-22 and F-35.

He concludes the J-20 is not 'as good' as the F-22 or F-35(and probably all other American planes)

 

[Asoka]

I'm sure the J-20 is a true stealth fighter but I'm also sure that the US with decades of research, test aircraft in numbers and operational experiences are most likely still ahead. Additionally there are indeed a few issues like the canards, the alignment of certain axis, these strange vents on the intakes, the round nozzles without any zig-zag as on the F-35, the open chaff-and-flare boxes on the tails that cannot be ignored.

Deino

I agreed with your calls to be civilized in this discussion and no one is suggesting China is ahead of US or Russia in aircraft design.

What is shown in J-20 is mostly derived from US experiences in F-20 and F-35. I bet even a near blind man can tell the astounding similarities between these three aircrafts in stealth features. Western medias and US government have keep suggesting that China stole the technical data. I don't know that is true. But I do agree that China liberally "borrow" the US experiences, and it clearly shows. And then some fanboy suggests J-20 is based on the Russian Mig-1.44 is simply mind boggling. I don't know what make them LIKE to say that. Perhaps it makes them feels good that Mig-1.44 was a canceled project.

Folks, get that into your head, the stealth features of J-20 are based on F-20 and F-35, not Mig-1.44. And the EODAS really followed the F-35's lead. I am saying the technical data were stolen from F-35.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4NyuEJ8YO

I dont have to because he IS making bold claims with no definitive proof by admiting:

and by the magical analytic powers of his bare eyes with the dihedral angle of the canards as the centrepiece of his arguement(of which he has no measurements to argue with) :

He concludes the J-20 is not 'as good' as the F-22 or F-35(and probably all other American planes)

That's right, Gambit absolutely have no definite proof of J-20's stealthiness, other than what came out of his mouth. If someone can make the B2 bomber stealthy, I will not hold my breath that no one can make the little canards stealthy.

 

[Deino]

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...tes-discussions.111471/page-422#ixzz4NyuEJ8YO



I dont have to because he IS making bold claims with no definitive proof by admiting:



and by the magical analytic powers of his bare eyes with the dihedral angle of the canards as the centrepiece of his arguement(of which he has no measurements to argue with) :



He concludes the J-20 is not 'as good' as the F-22 or F-35(and probably all other American planes)

But do You have in return any technical valid argument to counter his claim?? Why should it be with all the issues he - and I added a few more - reach the same level of stealth?? What about the nozzles, what about the non-alignment, what about the clearly visible chaff&flare-boxes ?? I know there are maybe methods to make them stealthy but as long as they are visible the way now, it need to be discussed.
Only to say the Chinese must know their business or he is stupid - honestly to say so - is not an argument. Otherwise the Russian T50 must be already a 6.5th generation fighter if one follows all that hype in some Russian forums...

Again: I can understand all Your feelings and the J-20 is not only a giant leap in Chinese aeronautic achievements; it's more ... but is not a magical bird. It has to obey the laws of Physics in the same way as all other aircrafts and if there are certain "points of concern" ... then let's argue.

 

[gambit]

You simply have no definite proof that the canards or the J-20 is not very stealthy.

I have the laws of physics. See post 6311.

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ates-discussions.111471/page-421#post-8842985

Show me where I am wrong on the basics.

Since you have no access to it for testing or validation of your claim. So stop presenting your opinions are facts. It's simply laughable to suggest Chinese engineers cannot solve this problem, if there is one.

Do you really think this is a difficult or unsolvable problem? or you just think the Chinese cannot solve it by themselves?

The PDF Chinese and their supporters have no problems citing the Air Power Australia (APA) group, even though those ya-hoos have no access to the J-20. All they did were rudimentary simulations and everyone took it as gospel.

You think Lockheed can do more than just computer simulations ? How much do you want to bet that Lockheed did not built a full scale model of the J-20 and tested it ? I would not want to take that bet.

Here is the SR-71 under open field radar testing decades ago.

Why upside down and where are the vertical stabs ?

But here is a bet I am willing to take: That if Lockheed reveals the radar measurement of its own J-20 model, they would reveal their proprietary measurement techniques by way of the details of the data.

It is reasonable to place the J-20's canards under suspicion. That is professional.

 

[Deino]

...
That's right, Gambit absolutely have no definite proof of J-20's stealthiness, other than what came out of his mouth. If someone can make the B2 bomber stealthy, I will not hold my breath that no one can make the little canards stealthy.

Sorry, but that's an invalid point, since shape is the predominant issue, not size alone.
Anyway again: Canards are not un-stealthy per se ... but they need a certain treatment or coating and at least are an issue worth to be discussed. Ignoring them does not make them stealthy.

Deino

 

[Asoka]

I have the laws of physics. See post 6311.

https://defence.pk/threads/chengdu-...ates-discussions.111471/page-421#post-8842985

Show me where I am wrong on the basics.


The PDF Chinese and their supporters have no problems citing the Air Power Australia (APA) group, even though those ya-hoos have no access to the J-20. All they did were rudimentary simulations and everyone took it as gospel.

You think Lockheed can do more than just computer simulations ? How much do you want to bet that Lockheed built a full scale model of the J-20 and tested it ? I would not want to take that bet.

Here is the SR-71 under open field radar testing decades ago.

Why upside down and where are the vertical stabs ?

But here is a bet I am willing to take: That if Lockheed reveals the radar measurement of its own J-20 model, they would reveal their proprietary measurement techniques by way of the details of the data.

It is reasonable to place the J-20's canards under suspicion. That is professional.

I don't doubt that LM has the resource to built a full mockup of J-20 to see how stealthy of the design. But you certainly don't have resources and you certainly have not done any testing on J-20 or even go near it. So stop insulting the Chinese by suggesting we can't solve the problem of making the canard stealthy. You have no proof that J-20 is not stealthy as it is now. You are only making a fool of yourself or making yourself feel good, foolishly.

Sorry, but that's an invalid point, since shape is the predominant issue, not size alone.
Anyway again: Canards are not un-stealthy per se ... but they need a certain treatment or coating and at least are an issue worth to be discussed. Ignoring them does not make them stealthy.

Deino

I agreed. I just want to hammer in the point that even if the canards are not stealthy to begin with, engineers CAN make them stealthy. China has all the resources it need to make this happen. And the laws of Physics don't prevent this from happening. I doubt that this problem is even difficult to begin with. It's just some fanboy got stuck with this idea that canards are stealthy and hold on to it.

"It is reasonable to place the J-20's canards under suspicion. That is professional."

Sure, I agreed. One can be suspicious about the canard. But it's also easy to see that with all the resources the Chinese has, and engineering skills demonstrated, it's not a difficult problem to fix. Get that into you head. It's not a big problem to fix, if someone can make B2 bomber stealthy. What's a little canard compared to the huge B2 bomber? Let's not fixated on it and keep making a fool out of yourself, Gambit.