Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[antonius123]

Kid, no one take you seriously, not even the Chinese. This illustration...

Is to show the radiation patterns of a plate perpendicular to the source as a reference, and the radiation patterns of a 60, 90, and 120 corner reflector for comparison where S is wavelength spacing apart. If that is mysterious to you, I understand. You ain't smart enough for it. It probably is mysterious to the Chinese boys as well but they know I do not post incredible sources. At least they are smart enough to know they have learned something relevant to the discussion.

Your claim that 120 degree corner = corner reflector is already proving you are silly and clueless about the subject you are thinking you know.

As the matter of fact, nobody take your silly claim with vague picture seriously because you have demonstrate your inability to to prove and response my and martian challenge against you; thats why nobody care to respond

 

[gambit]

I roll my eyes at you two dummies. My J-20 stealth fighter video has been seen over 88,000 times worldwide. If I felt like it, I could make another J-20 video for everyone around the world to see. No one has ever heard of you two and they never will.

And how many of those 88k actually have any experience in aviation? Probably 99% NONE...!!! The other 1% laughed their @$$eS off. My friends over at Hill, Nellis, and Langley are in that 1%.

 

[Prahar007]

In indian physics:

- reflection = emission
- round shape has the same reflection pattern with sphere shape
- flat surface diffract Radar Wave
- 120 degree or more corner = corner reflector too
- round shape is not detrimental to RCS

Ask gambit, he is the master of Indian physics

Atleast Indian Physics has earned a noble prize

 

[Luftwaffe]

Anyway, I'm off. If Dr. Somnath shoves another "J-20 sucks" post in my face, I'll be back.

Actually dr. somnath is planning on making/declaring Rafale more stealthier than J-20.
don't remember where he opened thread you may need to find it because the thread is ridiculous.
he/his mates declare Rafale to be better once isrealified poor mmrca deal.

 

[DrSomnath999]

1. The J-20 Mighty Dragon does not need a saw-tooth design at the rear of the canard, because the J-20 canard is made of composite material, shaped to deflect radar away from transmitter, RAM-coated (which Rafale lacks),

LOLLLZ , really martian ur stupidity is unrivalled in this planet thats for sure
1)composites: Do u have x ray in ur eyes?? then how do u know it is made entirely of composites ,BTW rafale also has composites compare but not entirely .

2)RAM coating : what rafale canards doesnt have ram coating LOLLZ . Is it mandatory that all ram coating should be black like
j20 .??? then F22 also doent have ram coating lollz

1st of all understand the basics of stealth or order of importance of stealth in a plane

1st.comes shaping of plane ( Angled or canted surface/ saw tooth pattern ) , then comes composition of air frame (composites) , then at the last comes surface coating (ram coating) .
because composites & RAM coating doesnt guarantee stealth always as RAM properties is unreliable at all radar frequencies .The most important part is shaping .

now see the importance of SAW TOOTH pattern in rafale's canards , i hope u could understand from the pic the importance of
saw tooth in stealthiness of rafale's canards as compare to J20 canards

the canard-fuselage intersection is specifically designed to deflect radar. In conclusion, the J-20 canard is very stealthy.
The claim that the J-20 canard gap is a corner reflector is not true. Go ahead and try to draw a ray trace diagram to show a corner reflector. You cannot. It is a surface discontinuity as a tiny radar source. This kind of surface discontinuity is also seen in the T-50/Pak-Fa's airfoil gap and main wing control surfaces for the F-22, J-20, and T-50/Pak-Fa.

Tell u what man ... J20 's canard-fuselage intersection is a stealth disaster as it's junction has rounded protusion
which allows the radar waves enter into that J20 gap & bounce back to it's radar source .Not only through gap but from below
also the radar waves can hit the surface round protusion on it's canard & fuselarge junction. This rounded canard-fuselage protusion gives a source of tiny corner reflector for J-20's canard gap. It is not found in rafale as usual clearly justifying my point that rafale's canards are much beter in stealth design than canards

OMG (facepalm) what u compared "surface discontinuity in the T-50/Pak-Fa's airfoil gap as corner reflector surface??? lolllz
U forgot pakfa doent have any rounded surface protusion in it's wings & fuselarge junction like J20


now see the pics u would understand what i mean

2. J-20 slightly-rounded LERX is a minor criticism. It can be easily fixed. It is trivial.

Lollz It is minor criticism as u urself claim round surface are big No for stealth as in PAKFA IRST as it round .
as any round edge or surface may reflect some amount of radar waves back to it's source

Radar cross-section - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. The third point about the angle of the J-20's wings is without merit. I have already written a post to compare the planform alignment of the J-20, F-22, and T-50/Pak-Fa. It is silly to argue for more planform alignment angles on the J-20.


The shape of the main wings is designed to match the aerodynamics of an aircraft. The J-20 has canards and its wing shape is the most appropriate aerodynamically for the aircraft. The guiding design principle is "form follows function" and not why don't you copy design features from other planes.

blah ...


i am comparing the edges of all the 5th generation plane as it should be & J20 clearly has less edges & less angular as compare to all 5th gen fighters which is due to it's vintage design features like DELTA wing, Rounded lerx & CANARDS which clearly raises question mark on its effectiveness on stealth ground
.

Off-topic: Nice try Mr. Somnath. However, this nit-picking won't work. You need to find a major flaw to grab people's attention. The only major flaw on the J-20 is the round engine nozzles. The J-20 engine nozzles are serrated like the F-35, but they are clearly not as stealthy (in both radar and infrared wavelengths) as the F-22.

LLOLLZ martian i had proved my case clearly but u turndown all my critiscism as minor .Meanwhile u can find all flaws in pakfa as major including Rounded IRST. This shows what double standard u have .
what J20 engine NOZZLES are serrated Seriously ???? ,have u ever compare F35 nozzles with J20 nozzles in ur life time

Mr. Somnath picked a terrible example in the French Rafale when he attempted to illustrate a perceived deficiency in the J-20 Mighty Dragon canard design. The French Rafale is not to be emulated in any way in the design of a 5th generation stealth fighter. The round shielding to hide the canard gap is far less stealthy than the J-20 canard's elegant back-end to deflect radar.

OMG (facepalm).!!!!

as usual martian time & again u have proved ur unrivalled stupidity in this planet ,nothing cant be the greatest example like
u have done here .HEY man i had compared only the stealth of rafale's canard with J20's canards which clearly is more stealthy as shown by me above .But god damn it u compare entire 4.5 gen rafale plane with a 5th gen J20 plane ..Hey man even a new born baby knows rafale is unstealthy compare to any 5th gen plane .This shows the height of stupidity u have attained today in the entire foruming history of yours .

Not only that u have posted a trash pic containing many wrong information about rafale's stealth .U r simply a great J%%K%$$

Anyway, I'm off. If Dr. Somnath shoves another "J-20 sucks" post in my face, I'll be back.

LOLLLZ martian perhaps u have said one thing right in ur entire lifetime about J20 .This is the reality yes it does but in terms of stealth

 

[qwerrty]

you're genius..dr. DODO would really love to have you on em team!

 

[DrSomnath999]

you're genius..dr. DODO would really love to have you on em team!

yes why not but i charge high fees can u afford it If yes then i would change my national flag to china & start bashing any anti china or anti J20 members

 

[gambit]

1. The J-20 Mighty Dragon does not need a saw-tooth design at the rear of the canard, because the J-20 canard is made of composite material, shaped to deflect radar away from transmitter, RAM-coated (which Rafale lacks), and the canard-fuselage intersection is specifically designed to deflect radar. In conclusion, the J-20 canard is very stealthy.

This is actually a bad argument for the J-20's canards.

If it is as simple as you claimed to just shape the canards WITHOUT aerodynamic consideration, then the Rafale's canards would have done it already. But that is not the case once aerodynamic considerations are taken as priority. In other words, there is no way -- without credible measurement data -- to declare the J-20's canards EITHER WAY. Composites does not automatically equal to being absorbers.

Assume that the Rafale's canards are modified to contain geometric tactics of RCS control, aka 'sawtooth' surface devices, near the trailing edges, we can guess that:

- Either aerodynamics trumped the desire to reshape the canards for better RCS control.

- Or it was found that there were no adverse effects on aerodynamic from re-shaping the canards but it was the cost of retrofitting existing fleet with new canards that compelled the -- perhaps inferior -- surface geometric methods of RCS control. At this point we can also ask if measurement data of and from these geometric 'absorbers' were sufficiently compelling.

My take? Aerodynamics. And that mean it is equally possible that the J-20's canards are no lower than the Rafale's in terms of RCS contributorship despite outward appearances of differences. Aerodynamics trumps all considerations.

 

[gambit]

The only major flaw on the J-20 is the round engine nozzles. The J-20 engine nozzles are serrated like the F-35,...

You sure about that...???

 

[Martian2]

French Rafale has at least 21 non-stealth features

In this photograph of the French Rafale, I have incompletely labeled only 17 non-stealth features. The actual list is at least 21 non-stealth features. For example, the round engine nozzles, non-canted vertical stabilizer, non-saw toothed wheel bay doors, and lack of continuous curvature for the fuselage behind the cockpit are additional French Rafale non-stealth features.

It saddens me to see Mr. Somnath fall victim to French marketing. The French have made the silly claim that the Rafale is partially stealthy. Unfortunately, Mr. Somnath has swallowed the French propaganda. Aside from the partially stealthy S-duct, there are 20 fully non-stealthy features on the French Rafale.

In conclusion, the French Rafale suffers from 20 non-stealth features and one partial stealth feature. This means the French Rafale is just like any other non-stealthy 4th generation fighter.

----------

Actually dr. somnath is planning on making/declaring Rafale more stealthier than J-20.
don't remember where he opened thread you may need to find it because the thread is ridiculous.
he/his mates declare Rafale to be better once isrealified poor mmrca deal.

 

[rcrmj]

Atleast Indian Physics has earned a noble prize

and few american presidents won Nobel 'peace' prize, so much creditability for that nose prize

 

[gambit]

The French Rafale is not to be emulated in any way in the design of a 5th generation stealth fighter. The round shielding to hide the canard gap is far less stealthy than the J-20 canard's elegant back-end to deflect radar.

Then why not copy the F-22's layout?

Unless...The J-20 is not a '5th generation' design.

In RCS control, the major flight control elements are the first targets for contributorship reduction. In looking at the comparison above, the J-20 have one more radiator than the Rafale in having twin vertical stabilators. However, the Rafale's single vertical stab produces two corner reflectors while the J-20's twin vertical stabs produces no 90 deg corners. Similarly shaped and sized complex bodies will produce similar clusters of discrete radiators.

Like this...

The counter-argument would be: Why is the F-117, which look nothing like the B-2, have supposedly similar RCS to the B-2, and vice versa?

It is a legitimate argument and the appropriate response is that size have a direct effect on RCS as well as those discrete structures on a complex body. When Northrop designed the B-2, they did not referenced the F-117. Instead, they went back to its predecessor -- the YB-49. Northrop already knew of the flying wing's naturally low RCS and what stopped the YB-49 back then was the limits on flight control technology because the flying wing design was inherently more demanding to fly.

But for the F-117, Lockheed had nothing to referenced. No historical precedence for what they wanted to create. Lockheed had to start from scratch as far as complex bodies goes. The result is that the F-117 look nothing like anything in aviation history -- 100 yrs of it -- and unto today. What Lockheed did with the F-117 was pure understated genius. Grossly understated. And far more in terms of efforts than what CAC have done with the J-20.

So if the Rafale is not to be emulated, and you are using the word 'emulated' wrongly anyway, then why does the J-20 look so similar to the Rafale and the MIG 1.44?

The F-22 look nothing like the F-15. After the B-2 experience, it became obvious to the top military aviation companies that the demands of low radar observability would force them to discard many -- if not most -- of conventional wisdom regarding aircraft design. The F-22 is physically larger than the F-15. The F-22's reference was the F-117, not the F-15, when it comes to radar behaviors. Northrop's YF-23 also had nothing in common with the F-15 and also referenced the F-117 regarding radar behaviors.

And yet, the J-20 have striking physical similarities with the Rafale and the MIG 1.44 when it is boldly declared that the Rafale is not to be 'emulated'.

 

[Martian2]

Canard and delta wing design is widespread. Not used only by the French.

Chinese J-7 (with first flight in 1966) was a delta wing.

Chinese J-10A Vigorous Dragon (with first flight in 1998) is a canard and delta wing design.

 

[gambit]

Canard and delta wing design is widespread. Not used only by the French.

Chinese J-7 was a delta wing.

Chinese J-10A Vigorous Dragon is a canard and delta wing design.

All the more devastating for your argument...

The French Rafale is not to be emulated in any way in the design of a 5th generation stealth fighter.

We already know of at least one '5th generation' fighter -- the F-22. The next upcoming will be the F-35. We know what they look like.

So if the Rafale is not to be 'emulated', then why does the J-20 Drag Queen and the J-10b Viagrous Dragon looks more like the Rafale than the F-22?

 

[Martian2]

All the more devastating for your argument...


We already know of at least one '5th generation' fighter -- the F-22. The next upcoming will be the F-35. We know what they look like.

So if the Rafale is not to be 'emulated', then why does the J-20 Drag Queen and the J-10b Viagrous Dragon looks more like the Rafale than the F-22?

I find you boring with your attempts at slander. Chinese fighter aircraft design has a multi-decade history of using delta wings. Canards were later added to provide additional lift.

The diagram listing 21 stealth defects on the French Rafale is a clear contrast to the J-20 Mighty Dragon, which has none of the Rafale's 21 deficiencies. It is debatable whether the J-20 LOAN engine nozzles (like the F-35) count as a deficiency.

Anyway, you haven't raised a legitimate point and I'm leaving. If Dr. Somnath keeps trash talking the J-20, I'll be back.