What's new

How China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Would Shoot Down an F-22 or F-35

Following are the most powerful Russian and Chinese radar systems in existence.

images


For reference.
upload_2019-5-30_1-49-38.png

so:
upload_2019-5-30_1-59-22.png

so:
upload_2019-5-30_2-1-30.png

and finally:
upload_2019-5-30_2-6-39.png

this means the RCS is subject to range through the second root of it's value.
so if an f-14 can detect a 5 sqm target from 370 km away, it can detect an f-35 (0.005 sqm) from almost 66 kms.
also your chart is based on vhf band.
 
.
View attachment 562713
so:
View attachment 562718
so:
View attachment 562720
and finally:
View attachment 562722
this means the RCS is subject to range through the second root of it's value.
so if an f-14 can detect a 5 sqm target from 370 km away, it can detect an f-35 (0.005 sqm) from almost 66 kms.
also your chart is based on vhf band.
Uniform RCS of F-35 Block 3f (baseline production standard) in VLO configuration = 0.0004 m^2 (+/-); declassified in the Air Force Magazine May 2019 issue.

Ignore beast mode, or prototypes.
 
Last edited:
.
Uniform RCS of F-35 Block 3f (baseline production standard) in VLO configuration = 0.0004 m^2 (+/-); declassified in the Air Force Magazine May 2019 issue.

Ignore beast mode, or prototypes.

And its nothing more than just a completly useless theoretical figure from very specific tiny sector thrown around for clueless fanboys. Average frontal-side aspect RCS figure of F-35 in real life scenario is hundreds times more in the range of 0.1 m2 and rear-side average is even higher.
 
Last edited:
. .
And its nothing more than just a completly useless theoretical figure from very specific tiny sector thrown around for clueless fanboys. Average frontal-side aspect RCS figure of F-35 in real life scenario is hundreds times more in the range of 0.1 m2 and rear-side average is even higher.
Rubbish.

Su-57 and Rafale have a uniform rcs of 0.1 m^2 and these are not 'stealth' jets per American standards. F-35 Block 3f, even without its high quality RAM coating treatment, have a lower uniform RCS then these two.

Keep in mind the fact that no 3rd party can simulate the true RCS of F-35 airframe based on its raw shape design, there are many shape-related details that are missing in 3rd party simulations (details that only Lockheed Martin can provide). Additionally, impact of rcs-reducing composite materials and high-quality RAM coating treatments are not possible factor-in (information cut-off from the web). Sorry.
 
Last edited:
.
China can Kill F 35 and F22 with J 20. Chinese radar can detect F 22. I do not know why China sacked the designer of such potent plane and why J 20 scored just 3.5:1 kill ratio againsw 3.5 generation plane . F 22 has that kill ratio of over 100.

Any way boasting is not a crime so anybody can post anything here.

I'd worry more about the state of your own Air Force after you were 'outgunned' (according to a report in your own hyper-nationalist chest-thumping media) by an Air Force 6-7x smaller in terms of size and budget.
 
.
Rubbish.

Su-57 and Rafale have a uniform rcs of 0.1 m^2 and these are not 'stealth' jets per American standards. F-35 Block 3f, even without its high quality RAM coating treatment, have a lower uniform RCS then these two.

Keep in mind the fact that no 3rd party can simulate the true RCS of F-35 airframe based on its raw shape design, there are many shape-related details that are missing in 3rd party simulations (details that only Lockheed Martin can provide). Additionally, impact of rcs-reducing composite materials and high-quality RAM coating treatments are not possible factor-in (information cut-off from the web). Sorry.

Reality. Sorry to disappoint you, but propaganda values from US like 0.0001 m2 RCS are useless lowest possible extreme deviations from normal average that were calculated in artifical conditions. Whether you apply RAM or not the same standard deviation is still here. Real effective average RCS is hundreds times higher than PR figure.

Having no clue about RCS and the difference between average and PR RCS is actually a reason someone may think that Rafale and SU-57 have the same RCS.
 
Last edited:
.
Reality. Sorry to disappoint you, but propaganda values from US like 0.0001 m2 RCS are useless lowest possible extreme deviations from normal average that were calculated in artifical conditions. Whether you apply RAM or not the same standard deviation is still here. Real effective average RCS is hundreds times higher than PR figure.

Having no clue about RCS and the difference between average and PR RCS is actually a reason someone may think that Rafale and SU-57 have the same RCS.
FYI



Israeli Air Force F-35 (internal payload) were responsible for destroying some high-value installations in Syria on the night of January 20, 2019: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...how-damage-caused-by-aerial-attacks-1.6867895

Notice the destruction of the Chinese JY-27 radar system in there? One of the best radar systems in existence, operating in the VHF band, and reportedly capable of detecting targets with a small rcs. FYI: http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/02.surv/karte027.en.html

Take a look at the following chart.

images


Well.....
 
Last edited:
.
I'd worry more about the state of your own Air Force after you were 'outgunned' (according to a report in your own hyper-nationalist chest-thumping media) by an Air Force 6-7x smaller in terms of size and budget.

There is nothing new in it. Pakistan is defeating us since 1947. They did it in 1947, 1695, 1971 and 1998 and recent strike in balakot where 4 trees fell and 2 cows died in India's attack.
 
.
this is not about f-14 vs f-35, it's about radar range, i don't know why chinese radars have limited ranges (i'm not trolling i really want to know why, is it a tactic or what??).
for example if you could have a radar with 800 km range, it would detect an f-35 in 212 km away... so radar range matters.
This is a gross misunderstanding of even basic radar detection principles.

I will give you a real world example. The MIG-25's radar was so powerful in terms of amplitude and range that its signals can actually achieved 'burn-thru', meaning those signals are so powerful that they cannot be jammed. The signals will power thru any countermeasure signals.

This...

nylAfPE.jpg


...Is the foundation of %99 of radar systems: A pulse.

What most people, and apparently including you, do not realize is that a pulse is a FINITE packet of energy. A pulse have a leading edge (LE) and a trailing edge (TE) and that is what make it finite. The radar transmit and create an LE, then it stop and that create a TE. And repeat a few million times. The longer the pulse, the greater the amount of energy per pulse. Conversely, the shorter the pulse, the less the energy per pulse.

So why would anyone use shorter pulses? Because the LE and TE are effectively TIMER markers. An LE have a time when it was created and the TE is the time when it ended. With these timer markers, the radar computer is able to generate these target resolutions:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

The shorter the pulses, the finer the granularity of those resolutions. Conversely, the longer the pulses, the coarser those resolutions.

The MIG-25's radar was so powerful but so coarse that it could not do anything beyond telling the pilot that there is 'something' in a direction, in other words, the MIG pilot would not know those target's resolutions. But that was against a 'non-stealth' target.

Remember, the MIG-25's radar can only tell the pilot of a 'blip' on the radar scope, not how high, how fast, or heading.

Against the F-22 or F-35, in order to achieve the same target detection as that of the MIG-25 against 'non-stealth' targets, you would need a PHYSICAL pulse length of METERS.

https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/frequency-letter-bands

Look at the VHF to the HF bands. The seeking radar would have to be in those bands. A pulse would literally have to be at least one meter length.

Then with that level of energy thru the ether, the F-22 and F35 would know where the EM threat is and take evasive actions before the seeking radar would know anything. This TACTICAL knowledge is why despite decades passed since the F-117, long wavelengths radar have not proven to be the solution against 'stealth' that Russian salesmen have claimed.

So by all means, Iran can use those long wavelengths, high energy, and long range radars. See how effectively they will be, but by then, it will be too late for Iranian air defense.

And I have not even touched beamwidth.

blogs on nationalinterest say all kinds of things.. I wouldn't take them to seriously
You should. Because that is the intellectual lollipops your fellow Chinese needs on this forum. A lot of sugar but no real nutrition.
 
.
There is nothing new in it. Pakistan is defeating us since 1947. They did it in 1947, 1695, 1971 and 1998 and recent strike in balakot where 4 trees fell and 2 cows died in India's attack.
What in world do live in we take part of Kashmir and you didn't take any action instead of crying in front of the world at UN in 48 in 65 we destroyed almost your IAF 19 vs 110, we reach almost delhi and gurdaspur (a way to kasmir from India) we attack dawakera and destroy your port, your mighty aircraft carrier didn't left the port becuase of PNS Ghazi (first sub of subcontinent) but yes we lost in dialogue table, in 71 there were partial success of india because minimal PAF/PN on east Pakistan and thanks to Mukhti bahani created and supported by India, but in western front we give hard time in fact lot better then 65, and as for 98 there were no win and lose for both parties superpower solve this problem, and on recent clash whole world buys/support Pakistanis narrative, so jog on and have a good night sleep @Surya 1 :lol::rofl:;):enjoy:
 
.
What in world do live in we take part of Kashmir and you didn't take any action instead of crying in front of the world at UN in 48 in 65 we destroyed almost your IAF 19 vs 110, we reach almost delhi and gurdaspur (a way to kasmir from India) we attack dawakera and destroy your port, your mighty aircraft carrier didn't left the port becuase of PNS Ghazi (first sub of subcontinent) but yes we lost in dialogue table, in 71 there were partial success of india because minimal PAF/PN on east Pakistan and thanks to Mukhti bahani created and supported by India, but in western front we give hard time in fact lot better then 65, and as for 98 there were no win and lose for both parties superpower solve this problem, and on recent clash whole world buys/support Pakistanis narrative, so jog on and have a good night sleep @Surya 1 :lol::rofl:;):enjoy:

Is it????

I am amazed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
. .
There is nothing new in it. Pakistan is defeating us since 1947. They did it in 1947, 1695, 1971 and 1998 and recent strike in balakot where 4 trees fell and 2 cows died in India's attack.

I'm not sure about the past, but I know you got your asses kicked this time. Peace.
 
.
You should. Because that is the intellectual lollipops your fellow Chinese needs on this forum. A lot of sugar but no real nutrition.
wow what a profound generalization.. are you sure that's not your inner vietnamese talking?:lol:
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom