Chinese delegation sent to Russia to discuss stealth fighter engine

[j20blackdragon]

LEVCONs deflected.

Stabilators deflected.

I want the anti-canard trolls to comment on this.

Chinese physics here Why do you compare size of stealth aircraft with non-stealth aircrafts? Look at RCS of B-2 and compare it with RCS of F-117 this is what i was talking about. RCS of J-20 and PAK-FA will be like that. And this is real physics

Because the PAK FA is a non-stealth aircraft compared to the J-20.

The J-31 blows the PAK FA away even more.

 

[zzzz]

And here we have the weak canards argument again.

I counter this argument with a picture of the PAK FA with both LEVCONs and stabilators deflected.

Levcons are part of the wing and dont affect stealth in any way. It doesnt matter for radar whether part of the wing has ability to move or not. It sees it just like a normal wing.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Levcons are part of the wing and dont affect stealth in any way. It doesnt matter for radar whether part of the wing has ability to move or not. It sees it just like a normal wing.

And here we have a perfect example of "Russian physics." According to zzzz, anything attached to the wing is invisible to radar and does not affect stealth in any way.

 

[zzzz]

Because the PAK FA is a non-stealth aircraft compared to the J-20.

The J-31 blows the PAK FA away even more.

Just comparing the profile area size of aircrafts which is one of the most important parameters for stealth we can conclude which aircraft is stealth and which not.

And here we have a perfect example of "Russian physics." According to zzzz, anything attached to the wing is invisible to radar and does not affect stealth in any way.

No i said whether anything attached to wing has the ability to move or not doesnt matter for radar.

 

[ptldM3]

And here we have a perfect example of "Russian physics." According to zzzz, anything attached to the wing is invisible to radar and does not affect stealth in any way.

LEVCONs air blended into the wing and not an active control surface, unlike a canard. This is where your Chinese physics fail, according to you the J-20s canards are stealthy if they are 'locked' or not moving while LEVCON, which are static most of the time are poor for stealth.

I am also waiting for the explanation of how those 'cavities' which Chanel airflow are any different from the J-20s Intake which are themselves cavities

The J-31 blows the PAK FA away even more.

You mean that now metal frame canopies and an uneven round fuselage suddenly became stealthy? Wow, amazing how Chinese aircraft are excempt from physics. I also wouldn't be bragging about an aircraft that is flying around with 30 year old soviet engines.

 

[ptldM3]

Impressive! Come back with strong googled imagery!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...uFkjo4vLdcE4rWEp47bURKA&bvm=bv.56988011,d.cGU

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...3sdQ6NFeGFSUIbkNe5PHOzw&bvm=bv.56988011,d.cGU

You can now apologize and admit you were wrong.

1) the 1L121-E is not a 3D imaging radar, you confused!

If anyone has been wrong it is you. With your poor English and even worse terminology I assumed you were talking full spectrum radars.

The point is that you made the claim that Russia can not make a 3D radar, you were wrong, proved wrong by sources, photographs and facts. Now to scrap your argument once and for all.

Now that you know synthetic aperture can generate 3 dimensional images here I will show you a specific radar with synthetic aperture.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...20mXeSlrzNsf-N_MI2vTz2w&bvm=bv.56988011,d.cGU

The Su-35 employs an Irbis-E passive electronically scanned array radar that constitutes an essential component of the aircraft's fire-control system. The radar is capable of detecting a 3-square-metre (32 sq ft) aerial target at a distance of 400 km (250 mi), and can track 30 airborne targets and engage eight of them at the same time.[37] The radar can also map the ground using a variety of modes, including the synthetic aperture mode.

2) Sonar 3D imaging is nothing to with radio waves imaging

radar. You confused! [

More like, you dumb, synthetic aperture on a radar and a sonar are very similar. One uses electromagnetic energy (EM) to scan an area and create an artificial image while the other uses echoes to do the same thing. The point is Russia has the technology to generate 3D images with both radars and sonars.

 

[ptldM3]

Those are just plain sour grapes. Kamo. Chief openly admit WZ-10 development is totally done by Chinese themselves and they are not involved. The helo has 100% Chinese component including the yu long engine.

A Kamov employee that was involved in the WZ-10 design posted back in 2007 that he was involved in the design, this was on a Chinese forum. Not to mention that the Kamov Chief designer confirmed the same thing years later. Then there is is a photo from Kamov, with the Kamov logo that show a graphic of the WS-10 as well as wind tunnel models of the ZW-10.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/HAIblog1.jpg

The evidence is damning, Kamov designed the WS-10, the only reason the Chinese claim otherwise is purely because they are embarrassed. The Chinese also claim the J-15 is totally 100% Chinese.

And J-15 is copy of Russian Su-33 but is a superior upgrade over the vintage Su-33 and again 100% developed by Chinese themselves.

How did the Chinese 100% develop the J-15 if the design work was done by Sukhoi. The Chinese just copied the T-10 prototype and installed Chinese avionics and even then I have my doubts that the avionics are fully Chinese based on the fact that the JF-17s radar was modeled from Phazatron, the Pl-12 was developed from the help of a Russian company and God only knows how much the Chinese learned, modeled and copied SU-30MKK avionics into 'Chinese' aircraft.


But please do Keep insisting that Russian military technology is trash even though the Chinese outright purchase Russian technology, copy it or ask Russian companies to help in development.

 

[帅的一匹]

I don't believe WZ10 helocopter was designed by Russia, it looks damn cool and different than any Russian heli in its inventory. I would rather believe USA helps China building this one.
J15 is totally 100% Chinese because we produce bots and nuts of it. If Russia navy wanna induct J15, we would like to sell it to you.

We can offer you a friendly price.

T50 looks like a reinforced stealthy version of SU SERIES.

 

[longlong]

Just comparing the profile area size of aircrafts which is one of the most important parameters for stealth we can conclude which aircraft is stealth and which not.



No i said whether anything attached to wing has the ability to move or not doesnt matter for radar.

T-50 is not so stealth, it does not mean it's not a great next generation aircraft.

The pakfa designer concern the maneuver and detection more than stealth is obvious.

So far no F-22 ever engaged in any war, a good next gen fighter had not been proved what it should be.

But, just talk about stealth, T-50 is not. It's stealth optimized, not stealth oriented.

Will F-117 be stealth if hanging two engines below?

Will B-2 can go anywhere with two giant engines hanging below the belly?

F-22 or F-35 will become 4th gen fighter if they hanged two big air-to-ground missile beneath the belly. And two engines are bigger than any of those.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=рлс с синтезированной апертурой&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CDUQFjADOAo&url=http://pentagonus.ru/publ/10-1-0-1053&ei=pwaQUuywLIPsoASy34LQCQ&usg=AFQjCNE-X6uuFkjo4vLdcE4rWEp47bURKA&bvm=bv.56988011,d.cGU

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=рлс с синтезированной апертурой&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CDEQFjACOAo&url=http://uav.ru/articles/sar_for_uav.pdf&ei=pwaQUuywLIPsoASy34LQCQ&usg=AFQjCNEZZRP3sdQ6NFeGFSUIbkNe5PHOzw&bvm=bv.56988011,d.cGU

You can now apologize and admit you were wrong.



If anyone has been wrong it is you. With your poor English and even worse terminology I assumed you were talking full spectrum radars.

The point is that you made the claim that Russia can not make a 3D radar, you were wrong, proved wrong by sources, photographs and facts. Now to scrap your argument once and for all.

Now that you know synthetic aperture can generate 3 dimensional images here I will show you a specific radar with synthetic aperture.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=su-34 synthetic aperture&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDgQFjAE&url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35&ei=MAyQUp6qAoz1oASrqoKQAw&usg=AFQjCNGmMj920mXeSlrzNsf-N_MI2vTz2w&bvm=bv.56988011,d.cGU







More like, you dumb, synthetic aperture on a radar and a sonar are very similar. One uses electromagnetic energy (EM) to scan an area and create an artificial image while the other uses echoes to do the same thing. The point is Russia has the technology to generate 3D images with both radars and sonars.

Sorry, I apologize.
You have 3D imaging radar, Okay?

 

[applesauce]

Look at canopy size ralative to the rest of aircraft. Notice how frontal area size in sq. meters of J-20 is about 3 times(!!!) bigger than PAK-FA.
That basically means that one J-20 is equal to three T-50s combined together And that even without taking in account uncompatible with stealth canards.
Even with the same quality of ram J-20 will have about 3-5 times larger RCS than PAK-FA!

Regarding stealth this design is just a total failure. It was very naive for some people to expect magic from Chinese engineers who are basically 30 years behind in aviation tech.

the is probably the dumbest thing i have read all day
wheres gambit when you need him.

 

[gambit]

@longlong

The imbeciles don’t know the fact that EM only behaves as Maxwell Equations dictate, as well as EM boundary conditions. It has nothing to do how people call the parts name.

The imbeciles believe that if you call the parts (media in Physics) with different name, they would behave according to the caller’s ideology of China-hating. Thus, if they have an intruding part (or medium discontinuity, which they never understand), calling it canard would behave different electro-magnetically from calling it wing.

So it is impotent for people to call thing right: anything called China is bad, Vietnam is good; communism is bad, capitalism is good; wing is bad, canard is good in Phsyics…

We are still waiting for your dissertation that the 10-lambda rule 'violated' Born Approximation. If you published it in Chinese under 'Chinese physics', be kind enough to translate it. Merril Skolnik is still alive and he would love to read your paper.

 

[gambit]

As I've said before...

Canards are a moving control surface with a leading and trailing edge.

The F-22's stabilators are a moving control surface with a leading and trailing edge.

The main wings have a leading and trailing edge, and while the wings don't move, the flaps and ailerons certainly do.

The laws of physics apply equally to all of them.

Therefore, it makes no sense to disparage the canards while giving everything else a free pass.

No one is giving anything a free pass. But what you consistently ignored are explained in basic principles here...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 2

In certain radar views, both the J-20 and the F-22 will have nearly the same RCS, mainly: top, underside, and the two laterals. But what make the canards suspicious to experts is the frontal view.

Among the stupidest arguments presented by the Internet Chinese 'aviation experts' is that the J-20's canards can be static beyond the visual range and actuate when maneuvering against an opponent within visual range, and therefore any RCS contribution WVR is irrelevant.

It is stupid because it presume the J-20 will be engaging in only one opponent at a time.

First...There is no credible explanation as to why the J-20's canards are conveniently static canards, as in switching on/off at will. The argument is even more stupid when considering the J-20 is designed with pitch instability in mind, a la F-16, where all flight controls elements are always under constant minute adjustments, even in straight and level flight.

Second...Even if we are generous with the first assumption, what if the J-20 engages multiple opponents in different ranges? Does 'Chines physics' say that if the J-20's canards are effectively invisible to the furthest opponent, they are invisible to all opponents, even the ones within visual range? Given how much 'Chinese physics' we have seen here, the answer is 'Yes', the J-20's canards are effectively invisible to radar by simple virtues of wishful thinking and baseless declarations on the Internet.

 

[gambit]

And here we have the weak canards argument again.

I counter this argument with a picture of the PAK FA with both LEVCONs and stabilators deflected.

Spectacular fail.

That degree of deflection is possible only if airspeed is zero, altitude is zero, and there are pitch oscillations because the aircraft have some forward motion while under tow. Essentially, the flight control system tries to compensate and stabilize the aircraft base upon: pitot/static air, gyroscope, accelerometers, and cockpit inputs (if any). But since there is negligible airspeed and effectively zero altitude, flight control surfaces deflections will be visibly greater. This effect is usually seen while the aircraft is taxiing to the runway. It is not that difficult to find in youtube various F-16 taxiing and see the rear stabs moving as the jet bounces on the road.

For the above image, that degree of deflection is because of the absence of hydraulics and will NEVER occur in flight unless under mechanical failure.

 

[j20blackdragon]

I am also waiting for the explanation of how those 'cavities' which Chanel airflow are any different from the J-20s Intake which are themselves cavities

Already gave the explanation about intakes above. You are free to read again if you like.

The J-20 has all-moving vertical stabilizers with no double forward facing cavities.

You mean that now metal frame canopies and an uneven round fuselage suddenly became stealthy? Wow, amazing how Chinese aircraft are excempt from physics. I also wouldn't be bragging about an aircraft that is flying around with 30 year old soviet engines.

As expected, we have now arrived at your last ditch effort by mentioning the canopy frame on the J-31 prototype. But the key word here is prototype.

I've already anticipated this.

So I counter with the fact that the J-31 model has been shown in multiple airshows with a one-piece canopy. This will be the production version.

For those that don't know, a canopy frame is undesirable because it forms a gap that is perpendicular to the direction of flight.

And this is the reason why it's so fun having a debate with Indian/Russian trolls about stealth aircraft. At the end of the day, China still wins because the J-20/J-31 hi-lo combination will beat the PAK FA every time. We've already designed two stealth fighters on our own and Russia can't even do a single one correctly with Indian funding.

 

[longlong]

Spectacular fail.

That degree of deflection is possible only if airspeed is zero, altitude is zero, and there are pitch oscillations because the aircraft have some forward motion while under tow. Essentially, the flight control system tries to compensate and stabilize the aircraft base upon: pitot/static air, gyroscope, accelerometers, and cockpit inputs (if any). But since there is negligible airspeed and effectively zero altitude, flight control surfaces deflections will be visibly greater. This effect is usually seen while the aircraft is taxiing to the runway. It is not that difficult to find in youtube various F-16 taxiing and see the rear stabs moving as the jet bounces on the road.

For the above image, that degree of deflection is because of the absence of hydraulics and will NEVER occur in flight unless under mechanical failure.

it's just another kind of "canard" and lack of the correct angle against the body, its surface is perpendicular to the body when it is at standing position. and it will block the airflow when mechanical failed ---- no one can 100% guarantee it will not happen.

Dont read too much with your limited IQ which even cannot understand a simple science analogy.