J-20 and T-50, which is better?

[Zabaniyah]

I don't agree, fully that is. The planoform concept was proven in the Lavi, the other stuff is just details. One can argue that the devil is in the details, and I will not deny the hard work that goes into them. But the ground was broken by the Lavi. Just as the ground was broken by the MiG 1.44 ..which bears a resemblance to the J20.

Project 1.44:

J-20:

I don't see any resemblance.

Playing C&C Generals much?

 

[rcrmj]

Project 1.44:

J-20:

I don't see any resemblance.

Playing C&C Generals much?

I can see I.44 and J-20 are exactly the same```!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH``wait a second its a plane`

 

[amalakas]

I can see I.44 and J-20 are exactly the same```!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH``wait a second its a plane`

Yes ofcourse you wouldn't spot any similarities.. it is to be expected.

Leave this to other people, you just dream various possible match ups the plane will have with other planes while you make explosion sounds with your mouth... that usually works

 

[Machoman]

Dude both sucks mine is best..........this one...........

lol

 

[Zabaniyah]

Dude both sucks mine is best..........this one...........

lol

Damn. Red Baron

Yes ofcourse you wouldn't spot any similarities.. it is to be expected.

Leave this to other people, you just dream various possible match ups the plane will have with other planes while you make explosion sounds with your mouth... that usually works

You still didn't explain how come they are the same.

 

[Speeder 2]

if Israelis hadn't encountered hard & “end-game’ type tech problems in their Lavi projects, we would have seen Lavi flying in their air force long long time ago.

That's why we have "cancelled Lavi project".

The reason for the cancelling obviously was not due to finance or engines as both could be transferred from the US in one way or another like Israel does with most of its high tech.

( off topic here for a while On Israel invented this and that : AESA etc are called sub systems yet they are not literally “SUB” at all by any means. To claim that "Israel invented AESA" as a poster claimed previously is just logically impossible! These radar & avionics "sub" systems are not just 1 light-bulb alike single idea like a Magician teaching you how to make a card disappear, but consisted of many many leading theories /ideas and underlying "sub sub" systems - all required the support of world- beating high tech precision machinary industry that Israel doesn't have, unlike its world beating media empire & social networking "high " techs. Make no mistake, only one of those world powerhouses who have a stronghold on broad base fundamental researches such as physics, chemistry, biology, etc with ample finance could invent major systems at AESA level and other important avionics “sub” systems. If the claim were true, then Israel must have beaten all US, European, Russian and Chinese [think of all those big name defence and civilian giants such BAE, LoMa, EADS, NASA, European Space Agency... including their Chinese and Russian counterparts] in this area of fundamental science AND related industry. Israel? Puh-lease! )


In my untrained eyes, J-10 is likely to have very different aerodynamics profile from Lavi, due to apparently quite different delta wing shape, its angle with the canards (?) and surface size, the different plane size aside.

So saying that J-10 was based on Lavi , or for that matter J-20 was based on mig 1.44, only by "appearance similarity" is as idiotic as saying Indians are based on Chimps due to perhaps greater virtual similarities between the two.

I suspect, however, that J-10 did get hold on some very important wind tunnel test data of Lavi - which of course was indirectly provided by the US as Israel had/has no wind tunnels needed but desert fox holes, yes?

The smart Chinese may then have learned a lot from these crucial raw data and applied them into their own similar J-9 project and eventually made a breakthrough ( -- probably the similar problems that deterred the Israelis Lavi in the first place --) and created J-10.

Just my 2 cents.

,

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

This bother me a lot.

The truth:

1. Lavi is a cancled project. If Lavi is that good and Chinese "copied it", how come Isreali dont have it in their air force. They ended up buying 300 F-16!

2. J-10 is very different from the Lavi, to say that J-10 is from Lavi is like saying EF-Typhoon is copy from Rafale, or Gripen is copied from Typhoon!. Dont forget to mention J-10 is in PLAF right now over 300 build already and new upgrade such as J-10B just entered mass production.


The indians should look in their mirror with their black face first, if they accuse Chinese of copying. THeir LCA is junk and looks like a copy of Mirage-200. This is also an insult to Mirage-2000, since Mirage 2000 is much older and better!

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

Yes ofcourse you wouldn't spot any similarities.. it is to be expected.

Leave this to other people, you just dream various possible match ups the plane will have with other planes while you make explosion sounds with your mouth... that usually works

Why won greece makes some thing? You greeks are supposely good at it. Why buy F-16?

 

[amalakas]

Why won greece makes some thing? You greeks are supposely good at it. Why buy F-16?

why would we? Americans (and russians) give us anything we want, in any configuration we want.

 

[Akasa]

Yes, that is what I said, and the fact is the J-20 has poor wing geometry.

And explain this "poor wing geometry". The sweep angles are consistent. Delta wings provide less drag and improved transonic and supersonic flag. Explain the "poor" aspect of the J-20's wing geometry.

And yes, some credible links would be nice.

Right, and the J-20 has a smooth 'underside'? It doesn't have four large objects, most likely hydraulic mechanisms) hanging from underneath the wings?

That's not part of the centroplane ("the fuselage") I was referring to.

Compare the undersides of the fuselage of the J-20 and T-50.

http://www.chinasignpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/J-20-underside_CDF_16-Jan-2011.jpg
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/at...20637d1272853204-pak-fa-news-t50_img_1472.jpg

The former provide better stealth from that aspect.

You will provide a credible scientific source (not a magazine quote or blog quote) explaining 'panel alignment', than you will point out and be very specific where the J-20 has 'panel alignment' and where the pak-fa lacks 'panel alignment' than you will give an explanation as to why it is important, than you will make a quote from your credible chosen source that supports your claim.

Alignment and angling of access panels and door edges with the rest of the aircraft are necessary to avoid much radar return.

F-22 Stealth

A close look at the T-50:

http://www.ausairpower.net/Sukhoi-T-50-PAK-FA-KnAAPO-2BS.jpg

The access panels on the T-50 are not aligned with the sharp edges of the aircraft or with the edges other bays.

You do not see much of this problem on the J-20 and no sign of this problem on the F-22.

Same routine, as above ,but what is most delightful and plainly ignorant on your part is that the F-22 also has these 'gaps around the inlet'. Reading too much of Martians propaganda?

Please, I would like for you to explain yourself out of this one, here are those 'gaps':



Seems like you and Martian know better than the two largest and most experienced aircraft manufacturers in the world, correct?

Never said that the F-22 didn't have this problem. In fact the F-22 also to some degree possess this problem, as with the T-50. However, the YF-23 and F-35 don't.

You can't possibly possess every advantage of every RCS reduction measure and not inherit some disadvantages. It's all about balancing and focusing on the role of the aircraft.

Here is the YF-23 intake:
http://www.aim120.com/image/IMG_0609.jpg



You wanna hear what's propaganda? Read Putin's statement on how the T-50 is "better" than the F-22.

And the four large spheres underneath the J-20's wings don't apply? I forgot, physics don't apply to the J-20. By the way, the F-22 and pak-fa have the same spheres only much , much, much smaller. I wonder why the J-20's sphere are as large.........

The "spheres" on the J-20's wings contribute negligible amounts of frontal RCS, arguably the most important aspect of RCS for stealth aircraft.

Please note that the "spheres" are not spheres, they are specifically designed to be aerodynamic and sleek in design, unlike the bulging IRST.

Don't care, half of the 'stealth' aircraft the US developed didn't have a bubble canopy.

And this "half of the stealth aircraft" never was an air superiority fighter and does not compare to the F-22 in terms of stealth.

Lets keep the conversation realistic and relevant.

Plasma stealth technology was first patented by Arnold Eldridge of General Electric. It was also tested aboard a Russian Su-27IB aircraft.

So yes, the concept is realistic.

Yes, like the Americans thought the Mig-25 was an agile fighter?

The Americans' biggest fear from the MiG-25 was its extremely powerful engine that could allow it to go at extremely high speeds. Speed alone in Cold War dogfights was very important. Agility does not come in the same package of an interceptor.

Just because the Chinese chose a delta design doesn't mean they did it for maneuverability, there are a number of delta aircraft that would get humiliated in a dogfight. And the J-11A reference just proves that the J-11 pilot was an armature or incompetent or both, in Russian aggressor squadrons Mig-23's have achieved Mig-29 kills, despite having inferior avionics and very inferior maneuverability. That same J-11 pilot wound get spanked by the Mig-23.

Delta design, again, does not boost maneuverability to a colossal extent. It is the canards that do. Delta wing configuration mostly reduces drag by removing excess airfoils and greatly boosts transonic and supersonic flight performance.

The J-11A vs J-10A exercise was a drill, not simply a 1 to 1 competition for fun. Pilots selected for these "Red Flag style" drills are not "amateurs". That's what the K-8, L-15, and JL-9 trainers are for. Drills involve professional pilots.

A good reason for the J-20's delta design was an attempt to improve the aircraft's range. While the canards may have been designed for improved maneuverability, they could also have been put in place because the radar and other avionics caused the J-20 to be too heavy in the nose, thus they had no other choice, this is the same problem early Sukhois had, until they managed to correct it.

Delta design = less airfoils = less drag = better fuel efficiency

I said that in the above paragraph.

The center of mass for the aircraft could easily have been solved by extending the delta wing forward (see the Saab Viggen). I also do not see how the nose (when its size is compared to the back) can shift the center of mass of the aircraft forward.

How many American aircraft use canards? What makes you think the designers of the F-22 would ever use canards even if it had no consequences to RCS?

The F-22 designers did in fact consider canards, but the addition to frontal RCS made them change their minds.

One of the Chinese members claimed that the WS-15 program was recently terminated.

And one Chinese member also claimed that Japan was part of China. Seriously dude, you are better than this.

 

[gambit]

Plasma stealth technology was first patented by Arnold Eldridge of General Electric. It was also tested aboard a Russian Su-27IB aircraft.

So yes, the concept is realistic.

Do not pretend to understand something. The proper questions were posed and you failed to support your arguments.

 

[casual]

hey, what matters is the specs and performance of a plane. wither the airframe is a copy or not shouldn't matter at all.

for example, i have a AK-47 pointed at you. would you care if it's a copy or not?

 

[kingdurgaking]

This bother me a lot.

The truth:

1. Lavi is a cancled project. If Lavi is that good and Chinese "copied it", how come Isreali dont have it in their air force. They ended up buying 300 F-16!

2. J-10 is very different from the Lavi, to say that J-10 is from Lavi is like saying EF-Typhoon is copy from Rafale, or Gripen is copied from Typhoon!. Dont forget to mention J-10 is in PLAF right now over 300 build already and new upgrade such as J-10B just entered mass production.


The indians should look in their mirror with their black face first, if they accuse Chinese of copying. THeir LCA is junk and looks like a copy of Mirage-200. This is also an insult to Mirage-2000, since Mirage 2000 is much older and better!

Very intelligent ofcourse... Really one will doubt you are an so called Aerospace engineer... if J-10 is from LAVI means it is not necessarily to be a LAVI replica .... All the good thing from LAVI is being input to J-10 and all the bad things are modified..

LAVI got cancelled because 40% US money was not released as US feared it would compete with there F-16.. instead they cancelled it and gave Israel subsidized F-16 because they cancelled it and they even let Israel to modify F-16...

Really your explanation on how you try to compare with Griphen , EFT is very much laughable...

We are looking at our Mirrors and our Junk is truly a world class with a payload of 3.5 tonne in first try and with MK-2 it is going to be equal to your J-10 payload with lot of internal fuel .. certainly capable of meeting your J-10's in Himalayas at high altitudes with higher payload than J-10...

 

[kingdurgaking]

hey, what matters is the specs and performance of a plane. wither the airframe is a copy or not shouldn't matter at all.

for example, i have a AK-47 pointed at you. would you care if it's a copy or not?

You didnt get the point.. J-10 and J-20 is still indigenous of China and no one will refute it... but with inputs and help from outside...

The comparison came .. when one of the member said...

Can Israel make its own airplane engines? Isn't that what you Indians use to insult us all the time? Why not turn the same magnifying glass to your great Israeli pals that treat Indian migrant workers like sh!t and see for yourself?

...

And Russians did managed to debunk it.... that J-10 did got help form Lavi project

http://www..com/products//defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065926403&pu=1&rd=_com...

But yes officially every one will deny this..

 

[Zabaniyah]

This bother me a lot.

The truth:

1. Lavi is a cancled project. If Lavi is that good and Chinese "copied it", how come Isreali dont have it in their air force. They ended up buying 300 F-16!

2. J-10 is very different from the Lavi, to say that J-10 is from Lavi is like saying EF-Typhoon is copy from Rafale, or Gripen is copied from Typhoon!. Dont forget to mention J-10 is in PLAF right now over 300 build already and new upgrade such as J-10B just entered mass production.


The indians should look in their mirror with their black face first, if they accuse Chinese of copying. THeir LCA is junk and looks like a copy of Mirage-200. This is also an insult to Mirage-2000, since Mirage 2000 is much older and better!

Lavi was cancelled mainly due to American pressure. Americans don't like it when there is competition in the weapons market in the Middle East. This is true pretty much anywhere where there is opportunity.

In fact, many of the Middle Eastern countries, including Israel are forced to buy American aircraft to some extent. Let alone the Arabs.

While the J-10 is not exactly a "copy" of the Lavi, the input in J-10's design came from the Lavi program. But hey, the J-10 is still a great fighter