China’s J20 Stealth Fighter: Made in America...via Belgrade

[gambit]

Where is this "full stealth" and "partial stealth" argument you've accused me of making?

Not YOU. Only enough from people here.

When the military set forth requirements for LO, does logic not dictate the design that exceeded the requirement have advantage over the one that only met it? It does not mean that the canard design was overall inferior, just in that particular criteria it is less capable compared to its competitor. Obviously CAC saw merits in a canard design, and so did Northrop when they bid for NATF.

But logic does not dictate that it automatically be contracted for production. An appropriate analogy: If the navy require a sub to go as deep as 100 meters and there are two competitors with one can go deeper than the other and both met requirement, then even though there is a technical advantage of one over the other, its cost may put it out of contention. But if costs are the same, then it would make sense to contract the one with the technical advantage. That does not mean it will be automatically contracted, only that it make sense to do so.

 

[S10]

Not YOU. Only enough from people here.

Then perhaps you should becareful where you direct your accusation then.

You and the others are under the false impression that 'stealth' is a set figure or a line that is universal. That is not true.

But logic does not dictate that it automatically be contracted for production. An appropriate analogy: If the navy require a sub to go as deep as 100 meters and there are two competitors with one can go deeper than the other and both met requirement, then even though there is a technical advantage of one over the other, its cost may put it out of contention. But if costs are the same, then it would make sense to contract the one with the technical advantage. That does not mean it will be automatically contracted, only that it make sense to do so.

Obviously, the current J-20 design must have met all requirement and was deemed the best compromise for it to be chosen, including LO and cost.

 

[amalakas]

Then perhaps you should becareful where you direct your accusation then.



Obviously, the current J-20 design must have met all requirement and was deemed the best compromise for it to be chosen, including LO and cost.

or it met the most out of all designs.. we don't know if all requirements were met...

 

[gambit]

or it met the most out of all designs.. we don't know if all requirements were met...

That is true. It is only natural to assume that if 'something' is contracted for production, that 'something' must have met all customer requirements. We know from business that is not always true and weapons procurements are no different.

 

[applesauce]

This is where the issue of canards are so misleading when it comes to radar cross section (RCS) control. In designing a complex body where we want to have equal importance between aerodynamic necessities and low RCS, it is possible to have an active flight controls elements in the fore of this complex body but we have to do so with the understanding that under certain conditions, the body's RCS may rise above a certain threshold because of those active FLCS elements.

Take a look at these examples...


Nowhere in them will you see the airliners' passenger windows. But does that mean they do not exist? The dominant energy spikes are from corner reflectors and I think everyone here should know about them by now since I have spoken enough of them. The final RCS value is a sum of many smaller RCS values so even if we can do 'something', either physically or virtually, to remove the larger physical structures that created those high energy spikes, smaller physical features such as passenger windows will still make the aircraft rise above a certain threshold. The graphs will just have a more uniform distribution of 'bumps'.

For the J-20's canards, they will be just like the airliners' passenger windows in that they will not stand out like those corner reflectors but they will be contributors that will make smaller 'bumps' like the ones above.


Just did...


I do not have such speculations. If I say the F-117 can fly undetected into China's electronic space, it is because I believe it and that conviction is based upon direct experience.

NEVER said canards dont impact the overall RCS
what i said was that canards aren't a deal breaker, the USAF clearly considered it enough to get flying prototypes in the air.

as for the F-117, just for the record you did say it could(in definite terms) fly into Beijing undetected, and your reason? "you believe" and "direct experience"? you've(or anyone) flown against Chinese air defenses in Beijing and directly "experienced" their air defense capabilities in the last 10 years? you've(or again anyone) have flown the F-117 against any modern SAM systems ie s-300? no? then you've got nothing at all with regard to this. flying into Iraq and Kosovo does not translate to flying at will into Beijing 10 years later undetected. and for the record i do not say it can or cannot just that we do not know based on the information we have

 

[below_freezing]

In the extremist's view, not being able to predict the path of a bottle thrown into the ocean isn't a natural limitation due to overall complexity, but a complete failure of fluid mechanics and physics.

 

[gambit]

NEVER said canards dont impact the overall RCS
what i said was that canards aren't a deal breaker, the USAF clearly considered it enough to get flying prototypes in the air.

They do not have to be 'deal breakers'. You may just have to lower your standards to make the deal.

as for the F-117, just for the record you did say it could(in definite terms) fly into Beijing undetected, and your reason? "you believe" and "direct experience"? you've(or anyone) flown against Chinese air defenses in Beijing and directly "experienced" their air defense capabilities in the last 10 years? you've(or again anyone) have flown the F-117 against any modern SAM systems ie s-300? no? then you've got nothing at all with regard to this. flying into Iraq and Kosovo does not translate to flying at will into Beijing 10 years later undetected. and for the record i do not say it can or cannot just that we do not know based on the information we have

When I said 'direct experience' that does not mean I flew the aircraft. It does not even mean I may or may not even worked on the aircraft. It mean I have relevant experience in radar detection of various objects and based upon that experience, I am convinced that even the retired F-117 is still a formidable low radar observable attack weapon.

 

[applesauce]

They do not have to be 'deal breakers'. You may just have to lower your standards to make the deal.


When I said 'direct experience' that does not mean I flew the aircraft. It does not even mean I may or may not even worked on the aircraft. It mean I have relevant experience in radar detection of various objects and based upon that experience, I am convinced that even the retired F-117 is still a formidable low radar observable attack weapon.

1. okay fair enough im not claiming the J-20 has better RCS signatures than the like of the f-22 anyhow.

2. again i do not doubt that the f-117 still formidable, all i said was that it has never flown against the air defenses of china, nor systems comparable to those deployed around/in Beijing and in fact much about the F-117 is still classified, we dont know how well its ram coating works and for obvious reason the chinese defenses are classified as well, thus because of these unknowns we can not say conclusively that it can, at will, fly into Beijing unopposed/undetected and yes you can believe whatever, but we know that china has been working on counters to VLO planes and now we know for a fact they have at least a prototype VLO plane in the J-20 to test against. so then it comes down to your beliefs which has nothing concrete to back it up as we do not have information on Chinese systems and F-117's performance against those defenses.