Chinese delegation sent to Russia to discuss stealth fighter engine

[longlong]

I asked for evidence .You have none...

my post is the best evidence......most detail info is classfied. thats it.

 

[EMERCOM]

my post is the best evidence......most detail info is classfied. thats it.

 

[longlong]

nations who have the the right people and enough money, radar and anything else will evolve naturally.

jet engine is not exclusive, though it is a little bit harder.

 

[EMERCOM]

nations who have the the right people and enough money, radar and anything else will evolve naturally.

jet engine is not exclusive, though it is a little bit harder.

@zzzz @Arzamas 16

 

[Bilal.]

from....

Most likely. Probably info on those new F-16's they have too. One just hopes both Swedes and Americans were so smart that before selling they installed some bugs in the software.

You do know that their was a flying prototype of KJ-200 as far back as 2006(probably even earlier)

2006 People's Liberation Army Air Force KJ-200 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While Pakistan placed an order almost a month after the above mentioned prototype crash and receive the first aircraft about three years later.

S100B Argus Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) Aircraft - Airforce Technology

So your argument is quite stupid.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Won't be non stealth by the time j-20 enters service.We will have pak fa as well.

The PAK FA is wannabe stealth. It's getting killed at BVR.

LEVCONS.

Exposed compressor face.

Gaps around inlets.

Canopy frame.

IRST ball on nose.

And that's just the front.

We have another laundry list of problems on the lower fuselage.

 

[j20blackdragon]

I was just looking over my PAK FA pictures again and spotted something else. The PAK FA has two forward facing cavities just under the vertical stabilizers. That's another 'big no-no' for frontal RCS.

I circled them in red.

 

[gambit]

Shame of you... I told you already, your pace was frozen and could catch up. LOL, it's too difficult for you for it's out of your IQ range.

2 small wings (canard) in front of J-20 --- yes, they are small wings --- you said it will increase RCS;
2 giant wings on F-22 ---yes, they are giant wings ---- you thought it would be fine for small RCS.

What's the difference? If we say two main wings on F-22 are canard, will it help you to understand something difficult for you?

(One more time free teaching: radio waves will not care how you name the objects.)

I though this is a easier way to open your blind eyes ---- disappointed, your brain didn't support.

You shamed yourself so many times, after a couple of days, you still cannot get the point.

LOLOLOLOL

No. The F-22 have 'giant canards'. So sayeth 'Chinese aviation' as explained by a conscript reject.

 

[gpit]

@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…

So say the guy who cannot identify the major structures of an aircraft.

This is YOUR illustration, buddy, and according to Chinese aviation, the F-22 have 'Gian canards'.

Another PLA conscript reject assigned to Internet troll duty.

 

[j20blackdragon]

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.

 

[ptldM3]

I was just looking over my PAK FA pictures again and spotted something else. The PAK FA has two forward facing cavities just under the vertical stabilizers. That's another 'big no-no' for frontal RCS.

I circled them in red.

And the J-20s intakes are not cavities?

Gotta, love the Chinese way of arguing 'canards are stealthy' on the other hand, 'LEVCONS are unstealthy'. And sorry your J-20 mightydrag-queen with the turning radious of a buss and those Chinese avionics will be target practice.

 

[zzzz]

The PAK FA is wannabe stealth. It's getting killed at BVR.

Compare this:

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.

 

[j20blackdragon]

And the J-20s intakes are not cavities?

What a weak argument.

All aircraft with turbofan engines have inlets because the engines require air, so it's an unavoidable characteristic.

Furthermore, real stealth aircraft like the F-22, F-35, J-20, and J-31 have S-ducts to block line of sight with the compressor face and to encourage multiple bounces along the inlet walls.

This diagram explains everything.

Lastly, the J-20's DSI bump reduces line of sight (somewhat) to the inlet itself from the front.

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

Another weak troll argument.

A well designed large aircraft can have a much smaller RCS than a poorly designed small aircraft, like the PAK FA.

 

[j20blackdragon]

And that even without taking in account uncompatible with stealth canards.

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.

 

[zzzz]

Another weak troll argument.

A well designed large aircraft can have a much smaller RCS than a poorly designed small aircraft, like the PAK FA.

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