J-20 not yet ready for export: Jane’s Defense Weekly

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Why would China export the J-20? It's like the F-22 Raptor; advance, dangerous, and exporting it means the J-20 will fall into enemy hands.

Yeah unless they want to sell it to taiwan or india..or their buddies...lmao.

 

[JSCh]

I thought generally speaking more T/R means the radar aperture with be bigger hence better.

 

[Akasa]

More T/R modules does not automatically equate to superiority. It depends on manufacturing quality and more important -- supporting software.


Does not automatically equate to superiority. Even if the J-20's engines will enable it to fly faster than the F-22, there are plenty of aircrafts that can fly faster than the F-22 or even the F-16 but are inferior to both overall.


Utter BS. More 'Chinese physics'. If there is a structure, that structure will contribute to final RCS.

1. True, but again nobody claimed that the J-20's radar was "superior"; instead the previous comment was to point out that the J-20 does have an available radar

2. Also true, but once more the existence of such an engine is another reason why the "unavailable engine" theory for the J-20 can be safely discarded

3. How exactly does a canard, which remains in line with the wings during level flight, generate more radar return from the front when it is not actuating? 

More number of T/R modules do not mean Radar is superior. AESA also depends on Power and algorithms.

You have not even field a normal engine and you are talking about 180KN thrust engine yet to be developed.

Canards are meant to increase the RCS and J20 has a disadvantage here.

1. True

2. The PLAAF now already has the WS-10 engine in service with the J-11B. They also tested it on the prototypes of the J-10B, J-15, and J-16, which is a very vivid testament of its reliability. The WS-15 5th generation engine made its first run in 2006 (for its core).

3. The addition of canards to one of the F/A-XX proposals suggest that it is not detrimental to stealth unlike what most presume.

 

[Superboy]

Canards have nothing to do with stealth. In the case of F-22, the same flaps are there, just in the back rather than in the front.

 

[gambit]

3. How exactly does a canard, which remains in line with the wings during level flight, generate more radar return from the front when it is not actuating?

So according to 'Chinese physics', stationary bodies are effectively invisible to radar.

3. The addition of canards to one of the F/A-XX proposals suggest that it is not detrimental to stealth unlike what most presume.

By that logic, the existence of the cockpit on the same 'suggests' that the cockpit region does not contribute to total RCS.

This is what happens when a person reads crap over at CDF.

 

[Superboy]

Utter BS. More 'Chinese physics'. If there is a structure, that structure will contribute to final RCS.

Or how about German physics and Jewish physics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

 

[gambit]

Or how about German physics and Jewish physics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

Take them up with the Germans or the Jews. This is about 'Chinese physics'. I want to see a reputable source that says a stationary body will NOT be seen by radars.

 

[Superboy]

Take them up with the Germans or the Jews. This is about 'Chinese physics'. I want to see a reputable source that says a stationary body will NOT be seen by radars.

You are bordering lunacy. Take a chill pill, man.

 

[gambit]

Reported for racism. Have a good day, mister.

Right...So you cannot support your own argument.

 

[antonius123]

So according to 'Chinese physics', stationary bodies are effectively invisible to radar.


By that logic, the existence of the cockpit on the same 'suggests' that the cockpit region does not contribute to total RCS.

This is what happens when a person reads crap over at CDF.

Prove that it is chinese physics !

The question is: how much the contribution of the J-20 stationary canard on it's total RCS. Is it negligible or significant?

 

[gambit]

Prove that it is chinese physics !

You should ask that of the Chinese members here. They are the ones making outrageous claims.

The question is: how much the contribution of the J-20 stationary canard on it's total RCS. Is it negligible or significant?

Please do not try to pass yourself off as someone with credibility. You first claimed to have 'aviation experience' to try to shut down the Indians, then when challenged, you backtracked to 'aviation study', then when challenged further as to which discipline since aviation have many disciplines, you ran. Essentially, you are a liar, a pretender, a fraud.

But in being generous, I will school you...

In intention of RCS control, which includes RCS reduction of an existing design or designing for RCS consideration from the start, it is necessary to control...

1- Quantity of radiators.
2 - Modes of radiation.
3- Array of radiators.

The two boxes above illustrate the three rules nicely. Rules, not merely guidelines or suggestions, if the intention is to take RCS into consideration. The Sopwith Camel, the P-51, or the F-16 did not have RCS as consideration so the three rules do not apply. But the F-117, F-22, F-35, B-2, PAK, and now allegedly the J-20, have RCS as consideration so the three rules absolutely applies.

Each box have a fixed quantity of radiators and the same array of radiators. But box 2 (right) obeyed rule 2, which is to control the modes of radiation. Contrary to what Stupidboy said about the canards being the same as the tailplanes, just as canards affects aerodynamics differently than tailplanes, canards falls under all three rules and being WHERE they are, rule 3 applies so the RCS signature of the body with canards will be different from the body with the tailplanes even though two bodies may have the same quantity of radiators -- rule 1.

Different does not automatically equal to either higher or lower. Only Measurement can tell us. But experience have already hinted that with current technology, canards, as per rule 3, TENDS to increase total RCS per rule 2. SinusSoldered said that the canards being on the same plane as the wings and therefore would have no effects on RCS. It is a baseless declaration as each canard is a finite body and with any finite body, rule 2 applies.

When we -- on this forum -- see at least a couple of reputable sources that says a stationary body is effectively invisible to radar, then we can toss out the three rules and I will be the first in line to do so.

 

[Akasa]

So according to 'Chinese physics', stationary bodies are effectively invisible to radar.


By that logic, the existence of the cockpit on the same 'suggests' that the cockpit region does not contribute to total RCS.

This is what happens when a person reads crap over at CDF.

1. Why would a canard that remains in line with the fuselage increase the frontal RCS by a huge amount when it essentially generates the same kind of frontal profile?

2. By your logic, then the F/A-XX is the only fighter that somehow magically remains stealthy with canards while the J-20 doesn't due to the exact same layout. Logic at its greatest.

 

[cnleio]

No any information said J-20 will export, like F-22 for USAF J-20 only for China’s own Airforce. Jane’s Defense Weekly confused with CAC's J-20 and SAC's J-31.

 

[UKBengali]

No any information said J-20 will export, like F-22 for USAF J-20 only for China’s own Airforce. Jane’s Defense Weekly confused with CAC's J-20 and SAC's J-31.

These analysis and reports from Western sources are little more than garbage.

 

[gambit]

1. Why would a canard that remains in line with the fuselage increase the frontal RCS by a huge amount when it essentially generates the same kind of frontal profile?

Who said 'huge amount'? Me? Prove it. Show me where I even implied it. Then see post 26 for some new knowledge.

2. By your logic, then the F/A-XX is the only fighter that somehow magically remains stealthy with canards while the J-20 doesn't due to the exact same layout. Logic at its greatest.

That is YOUR logic. Not mine. I have always advised people to stop making declarations, especially to the Chinese members here who have literally no experience in this field. I have always said that if anyone is going to make speculations, do it with intellectual honesty, meaning be willing to admit/concede ignorance when proven so. Not one of the Chinese members here have been so honest.

If the proposed '6th gen' American fighter have canards, it will be because of Measurement allowance, meaning Measurement proved that the OVERALL design will not breach a certain threshold. I know you guys have a difficult time grasping the concept of a threshold, but do try. If Boeing's simulation hinted that the proposed design will breach that threshold, whatever you see in the public domain will be scrapped. So why is that so equally difficult to grasp?