Improved Chinese Stealth Fighter Nears First Flight

[SQ8]

Disappointed My Indian brothers aren't fully committed to trolling here.

Must be the recent slew of bans handed out.

A lot of them, I can't say i will miss them.

Currently Im taking a pol pot approach to them. It has to happen once every few months to do some clean up along with shock and awe.

 

[Aegis DDG]

Interesting development. Will Shinshin fighter be an worthy opponent to the J-20?

 

[j20blackdragon]

Interesting development. Will Shinshin fighter be an worthy opponent to the J-20?

Let me know when the Shinshin gets beyond the model/mock-up stage.

Meanwhile, the J-20 appears to have reached the pre-production stage. The J-31 and Sharpsword UCAV tech demonstrators have already flown. The H-20 is rumored to be in development.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Furthermore, the notion that Chinese aircraft have never undergone RCS testing just because you've never seen a pole model is ridiculous.

We have pictures showing actual REAL aircraft being propped up for RCS testing.

You can very clearly see anechoic chamber style pyramidal shaped RAM around the supports and the ground.

Just because China hasn't shown you a 2 hour documentary of the J-20's development doesn't mean China hasn't done all of these things.

 

[Aegis DDG]

Furthermore, the notion that Chinese aircraft have never undergone RCS testing just because you've never seen a pole model is ridiculous.

We have pictures showing actual REAL aircraft being propped up for RCS testing.

You can very clearly see anechoic chamber style pyramidal shaped RAM around the supports and the ground.

Just because China hasn't shown you a 2 hour documentary of the J-20's development doesn't mean China hasn't done all of these things.

That LongJian UAV looks so sexy. That black outer coloring along with the strange wing configuration makes this Aircraft look formidable.

 

[gambit]

Interestingly, The BAE testing site at Wharton isnt too far away from Civilization or interfering signals. This is where they test projects like the Taranis.

Line of sight is the factor. But the ability to test at greater freq and power ranges is the most important in having an outdoor facility.

In either case, I would be folly to simply judge that the Chinese did not go through pole model tests and other process before coming up with their designs. The truth of the matter is known only to the people at the Chinese research institutes, but a fair guesstimate would lie somewhere between the hyper bloated spaceship claims of Chinese fanboys(and Carlo Kopp) and rather dismal junk portrayal undertaken by Russian and western commentators.

I never claimed that the Chinese had no such testing regime. I only pointed out for the Chinese members' benefits on how extensive an RCS testing regime SHOULD BE, not must be or could be. It is their typical false assumptions on what I said due to their lack of relevant experience and overly sensitivity on any criticism directed at anything China.

My point is that given how much greater the willingness on the American side to reveal some -- not all -- the details of the RCS testing regime, now that the 'stealth' cat is out of the bag, any unsubstantiated claims made by the US are often taken with high confidence, and I have no problems calling the American claims as unsubstantiated. The techniques involved in the testing regime are already public information anyway. It is the esoteric nature of the field that not too many of the public knows about them. For example, I dare say none here know what is a corner reflector and how it is detrimental to 'stealth' prior to my participation in this forum. But since I have explained, using publicly available sources, about this structure, virtually no one talks about turning so-and-so existing fighter into 'stealth' any more. The smarter people here finally acknowledged that a 'stealth' fighter must pretty much be designed from scratch and no 'classified' math were necessary in that understanding.

As for where the J-20 stands -- between the hyper bloated spaceship claims from the Chinese members here or the rather dismal junk portrayal from the many Western commentators -- is due to the far lesser degree of openness the Chinese government have about the aircraft, and that is not blaming the Chinese government for those extremes. We went thru the same thing with the F-117, if you are old enough to remember. I did and while on active duty at that. Even we USAF people were not immune from letting our imaginations go wild. But when presented with credible explanations on why the criticisms should be moved towards the middle from those two extremes, intellectual honest people should be willing to move and either tamp down their claims or moderate their criticisms.

Supercomputer simulates nuclear explosion down to the molecular level

The number-crunching required to simulate an actual nuclear explosion is staggering.

And as any computational scientist worth his grain of salt will tell you, once you start to scale this high, you are virtually guaranteed to experience failed error detection and bottlenecks in communication and computation — and this is exactly what started to happen. Initially, the researchers discovered that natural faults in the execution environment frequently resulted in errors, resulting in corrupted memory and failed communication between machines. The challenge, therefore, was in managing the scale.

Due to the 'classified' nature of the 'stealth' programs, it is at best guesstimated that the intensity of the numbers crunching to create a 'stealth' fighter is near that of simulating a nuclear explosion but the advantage that 'stealth' have over nuclear weapons verification is that radar bombardment of a body is non-destructive. When people casually use the word 'supercomputer' to design a post F-117 fighter, they seems to believe that all supercomputers are the same. Any computational scientist worth his grain of salt will tell you -- not.

But -- is it cost effective to use such a powerful computer to simulate the wide ranges of freq and power in RCS testing? Not when you can move a couple of hrs drive away from any major population center and build an outdoor facility. You use as powerful a computing machine as possible to shape and simulate radar bombardment of your design, or in the case of the F-117, as many engineers adept with the sliderulers as your hiring budget allows. Then you create scaled models, from hand held to full size, and perform real radar bombardments on them. Nothing beats the real thing.

 

[nomi007]

Furthermore, the notion that Chinese aircraft have never undergone RCS testing just because you've never seen a pole model is ridiculous.

We have pictures showing actual REAL aircraft being propped up for RCS testing.

You can very clearly see anechoic chamber style pyramidal shaped RAM around the supports and the ground.

Just because China hasn't shown you a 2 hour documentary of the J-20's development doesn't mean China hasn't done all of these things.

why outside

 

[j20blackdragon]

And here we have an actual Chinese anechoic chamber. Note the cruise missile models.

 

[SQ8]

But when presented with credible explanations on why the criticisms should be moved towards the middle from those two extremes, intellectual honest people should be willing to move and either tamp down their claims or moderate their criticisms..

Not easy to find... the problem is that the US occupies an odd jealousy towards itself when it leads in certain fields.
Quite simply, people dont want to buy that the Northrop "Shamu" was probably stealthier than the F-35 in certain aspects.. yet was done some 30 years before that.

An interesting comment emerged out of the Israelis regarding their F-35 purchase: they believe that the LO on the F-35 is viable for another 5-10 years before opposing technology catches up. Hence, their willingness to want more of their electronics and sensory gizmos on it than other variants. That brings another question up on the J-20.. regardless of how stealthy it is and is not. Its LO will eventually be susceptible to sensors such as the EOTS.. and even the current SNIPER pod. ipso facto.. the F-35 and perhaps the F-22 to an extent will also be finding that LO is no longer going to be the only failsafe in ensuring "stealth" from enemy detectors.

While the French have claimed a radar cancellation for their SPECTRA system, Im not sure if that is truly practical anymore in the age of AESA radars.. so what else do aircraft have to protect themselves? the F-35 had a possible self defence projectile much like the Trophy system.. but when it comes to its primary(as promoted anyway in the press) claim to fame of LO.. maybe that may not be relevant anymore.

 

[longlong]

All super computer are same? Then we made it faster and faster for what?

China did deploy Tianhe-1/2 to optimize the J-20 RCS features.

Tianhe took one or two weeks for one particular RCS calculation, and it will take the computer fast next to her at least one month to do the same job. For home-PC, that would be hundreds of years.

Doesn't J-20 looks quite mature and growing very fast?

Doesn't F-35 looks quite fat and growing very slow?

J-20 supported by No.1 super-computers in the world.

F-35 supported by upside down model. ( Wonder whether B-2, B-2, F-22 had ever been turned over in 1:1?)

 

[gambit]

An interesting comment emerged out of the Israelis regarding their F-35 purchase: they believe that the LO on the F-35 is viable for another 5-10 years before opposing technology catches up. Hence, their willingness to want more of their electronics and sensory gizmos on it than other variants. That brings another question up on the J-20.. regardless of how stealthy it is and is not. Its LO will eventually be susceptible to sensors such as the EOTS.. and even the current SNIPER pod. ipso facto.. the F-35 and perhaps the F-22 to an extent will also be finding that LO is no longer going to be the only failsafe in ensuring "stealth" from enemy detectors.

That is debatable. The advantage with radar is that YOU, not the target, control the detection medium. Passive measures like EOTS depends on the target's characteristics to provide references, such as contrasting details against background. Infrared is an example. Am not discounting these methods, but only question their efficacy to replace radar in so short a time.

While the French have claimed a radar cancellation for their SPECTRA system, Im not sure if that is truly practical anymore in the age of AESA radars.. so what else do aircraft have to protect themselves? the F-35 had a possible self defence projectile much like the Trophy system.. but when it comes to its primary(as promoted anyway in the press) claim to fame of LO.. maybe that may not be relevant anymore.

SPECTRA is junk, even against the later generations of planar array systems, and I have explained how a long time ago. Against AESA, it is worthless.

 

[gambit]

I think you need to be more specific instead of using meaningless vague terms such as "superior radar technology." Why don't you explain what this "superior radar technology" entails and how it works? I'll throw out some examples. Are you saying the F-35 has a low frequency radar system similar to the proposed L-band arrays in the leading edge of the PAK FA's wings? Are you saying that multiple F-35s can operate as an airborne multistatic radar? Are you saying the processing power and computers behind the F-35's radar are simply better allowing it to easily discern other stealth aircraft from clutter/noise? If it's none of the above, explain what you're talking about. You also need to cite your sources. I want to see photos, videos, or articles so we can substantiate what you're saying. You need to be able to prove that the F-35 can actually do what you're saying it can do. Your opinion is no good here.

It is funny that the Chinese members are lecturing me about 'meaningless vague terms' and citing sources when you guys are notorious for using 'meaningless vague terms' and usually do not cite sources.

No...I do not mean citing manufacturer's specs, I mean citing sources that explains the foundational principles of the subjects under discussions.

Something like this...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

...Or this...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

You stated something very dubious about the F-117's intake mesh. You took it from APA and cited it without thinking how they could be wrong. Am still waiting for your explanation. You posted pictures of Chinese fighters undergoing some kind of outdoor EM testing with absorber materials scattered on the ground and someone asked you why outdoor. Am still waiting for that answer. I do know why. I just like to see if YOU do.

Anyway...Radar detection is a two parts process: Transmit and Receive. Both are equally important and are always in a push-pull relationship with each other. Sometimes we developed hardware that have to wait for software to catch up. The ESA technology is an example. Sometimes we developed software that the current hardware cannot match. The software that was in the planar array technology is an example. That was ported over to the ESA technology and was quickly outpaced by the development of the AESA technology. I do not expect you to know that.

So when I said that we effectively 'defeated stealth', and I have hinted at how on this forum before, you are delusional if you think I am going to divulge details, even though I am no longer in that industry. I am an 'Old Crow' and crows do talk 'shop' to each other. You think I care about respect from you or anyone here about my opinions?

The J-20 is DOA.