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

[gambit]

Gambit, everybody here already know that object will contribute RCS no matter how low it is.

Yeah...Thanks to me, not you, that everybody here understand how and why.

What they mean "insignificant" is relatively compared to other shape/parts (airduct gap, round nozzle, perpendicular fin, etc).

Therefore what they are expecting from you is: your explanation + evidence why static canard on J-20 contribute RCS significantly, or more compared to bump, gap, round nozzle on other fighter plane (Pakfa, F-35). Some member has elaborate that to you, but you still dont respond properly yet.

Your pdf explanation why object contribute RCS is useless.

And this is why you continue to be seen by others as unable to learn even when things have been dumb down to their most basic levels.

In radar detection and RCS control, you do not compare objects to each other. Even though individual structures are measured as standalone objects, their summation either pushes the body above a certain threshold or keep the body below that threshold. It looks like you cannot understand the concept of a threshold as well. Summation -- why is that so difficult to grasp?

You forget about your own claim which is demonstrating your clueless about the thing you claim in previous old thread? (air intake = nacelle ? LOL, travelling wave, 120 degree corner, a lot more which are busted already)

https://defence.pk/threads/j-20-5th-generation-aircraft-updates-discussions.111471/page-167

You busted me? That is a laugh, fraud. You may only believe you 'busted' me and that is based upon your flawed understanding of these many subjects. If you 'busted' me, then tell us what 'aviation study' do you have? We already know you lied about your 'aviation experience'.

 

[antonius123]

Yeah...Thanks to me, not you, that everybody here understand how and why.

Thanks to you?

All object has RCS is well known everywhere in this forum. why so narciss?

You even cannot answered many chinese member's challenge here, instead burst missunderstanding and drag basic thing.

Many already understand and talk canard in term of comparison, while you only talk basic thing that everybody already know

And this is why you continue to be seen by others as unable to learn even when things have been dumb down to their most basic levels.

You even cannot answered many chinese member's challenge here, instead burst missunderstanding and drag basic thing.

In radar detection and RCS control, you do not compare objects to each other. Even though individual structures are measured as standalone objects, their summation either pushes the body above a certain threshold or keep the body below that threshold. It looks like you cannot understand the concept of a threshold as well. Summation -- why is that so difficult to grasp?

Dont be idiotic.

Many fighter's rcs is compared with that of certain object (marble, bumble bee, etc).

And why we can't compare RCS of one object to another object?
You dont have clue how much static canard contribute RCS, but pretend as smart ***.

You busted me? That is a laugh, fraud. You may only believe you 'busted' me and that is based upon your flawed understanding of these many subjects. If you 'busted' me, then tell us what 'aviation study' do you have? We already know you lied about your 'aviation experience'.

Your reputation here is notorious. Many are convinced that you are fraud, and not more than janitor in aviation mfg.

Even in this thread you are busted and fail to respond challenge from many chinese member.

Again I am asking you for your explanation + evidence why static canard on J-20 contribute RCS significantly, or more compared to bump, gap, round nozzle on other fighter plane (Pakfa, F-35). Some member has elaborate that to you, but you still dont respond properly yet. That are what chinese member is debating with you. We already know that wing or static canard contribute RCS, but we believe gap, bump contribute lot more.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Once again, there is nothing inherently stealthy or unstealthy about canards, just like there is nothing inherently stealthy or unstealthy about the main wings, horizontal stabilizers, and vertical stabilizers on any other aircraft.

It depends.

It depends on a number of factors such as the sweep angles of the leading and trailing edges of the canards, whether or not the canards are planform aligned with the rest of the aircraft, whether the canards form a 90 degree corner reflector with the airframe, and a number of other factors that we simply can't measure on an internet forum.

 

[UKBengali]

@j20blackdragon :

Would you mind telling us who is in your avatar?

She is so hot!

 

[gambit]

Thanks to you?

Yes, thanks to me.

All object has RCS is well known everywhere in this forum. why so narciss?

You even cannot answered many chinese member's challenge here, instead burst missunderstanding and drag basic thing.

Many already understand and talk canard in term of comparison, while you only talk basic thing that everybody already know

I assume that 'everybody' includes you? Then you should have no problems telling us what was your 'aviation study'.

Many fighter's rcs is compared with that of certain object (marble, bumble bee, etc).

And why we can't compare RCS of one object to another object?

That is pathetic. We are talking about a complex body where structures are measured and compared AGAINST EACH OTHER ON THAT BODY. Not against external objects. If a structure is successfully reduced in dimensions and shape to have a lower contributing RCS than its neighbors, then the process starts all over for those other structures. But first, we have to find the structure with the highest contributing RCS and work on that. The bee, the marble, etc, are irrelevant.

But then again, I thought you have 'aviation study' and belongs to that 'everybody' group that already knows this.

What a pathetic blunder...

You dont have clue how much static canard contribute RCS, but pretend as smart ***.

If I do not know, then upon what technical foundation can you and the Chinese declare that the canards are 'insignificant'? If I am a 'smart ***', it is far better than you because you are a dumb ***.

First...We start with the three rules of RCS control...

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

Second...We begin the three steps of RCS control...

1- Prediction
2- Modeling
3- Measurement

In other words, the 3 steps of RCS control are under the 3 rules of RCS control.

We predict that given X quantity of structures (radiators) in this and that shapes (modes of radiation) in certain configurations (array of radiators) will yield a total RCS of so and so. We model. Then we measure. Under the 3 rules of RCS control, even if we have the same quantity of radiators, their shapes and array WILL yield vastly different RCS-es. The corner reflector is a perfect example. Standalone, the plates will yield their own individual RCS values depending on orientation. But arrayed into a complex structure, the concentration of energy will be an order of magnitude greater than a simple plate.

Likewise with the canards. A design with canards may have the same quantity of flight control structures as the conventional tailplane design, but because the canards are in front of the main wings, we run the greater risk of constructive interference that may raise the body over a certain threshold.

This is why aviation experts around the world casts doubts upon the J-20 being a 'stealth' design despite not one of them knowing measurement data. Unlike you guys' baseless declaration of 'insignificant', their doubts are sound and based upon real physics and experience.

I cannot dumb this down further, fraud.

Your reputation here is notorious. Many are convinced that you are fraud, and not more than janitor in aviation mfg.

I do not care. But if you are so certain of what I was, then tell us what was your 'aviation study'. After all, according to you, I am only a janitor, right?

Again I am asking you for your explanation + evidence why static canard on J-20 contribute RCS significantly, or more compared to bump, gap, round nozzle on other fighter plane (Pakfa, F-35). Some member has elaborate that to you, but you still dont respond properly yet. That are what chinese member is debating with you.

Do not make sh1t up. Regarding the PAK, I said the same thing about the J-20: We need measurement data.

We already know that wing or static canard contribute RCS, but we believe gap, bump contribute lot more.

Based upon what technical foundation? The one I just explained again? Of course. But you did not know that despite your lie that 'everybody' know.

Very simple, kid. What was your 'aviation study'?

 

[longlong]

Yes, thanks to me.


I assume that 'everybody' includes you? Then you should have no problems telling us what was your 'aviation study'.


That is pathetic. We are talking about a complex body where structures are measured and compared AGAINST EACH OTHER ON THAT BODY. Not against external objects. If a structure is successfully reduced in dimensions and shape to have a lower contributing RCS than its neighbors, then the process starts all over for those other structures. But first, we have to find the structure with the highest contributing RCS and work on that. The bee, the marble, etc, are irrelevant.

But then again, I thought you have 'aviation study' and belongs to that 'everybody' group that already knows this.

What a pathetic blunder...


If I do not know, then upon what technical foundation can you and the Chinese declare that the canards are 'insignificant'? If I am a 'smart ***', it is far better than you because you are a dumb ***.

First...We start with the three rules of RCS control...

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

Second...We begin the three steps of RCS control...

1- Prediction
2- Modeling
3- Measurement

In other words, the 3 steps of RCS control are under the 3 rules of RCS control.

We predict that given X quantity of structures (radiators) in this and that shapes (modes of radiation) in certain configurations (array of radiators) will yield a total RCS of so and so. We model. Then we measure. Under the 3 rules of RCS control, even if we have the same quantity of radiators, their shapes and array WILL yield vastly different RCS-es. The corner reflector is a perfect example. Standalone, the plates will yield their own individual RCS values depending on orientation. But arrayed into a complex structure, the concentration of energy will be an order of magnitude greater than a simple plate.

Likewise with the canards. A design with canards may have the same quantity of flight control structures as the conventional tailplane design, but because the canards are in front of the main wings, we run the greater risk of constructive interference that may raise the body over a certain threshold.

This is why aviation experts around the world casts doubts upon the J-20 being a 'stealth' design despite not one of them knowing measurement data. Unlike you guys' baseless declaration of 'insignificant', their doubts are sound and based upon real physics and experience.

I cannot dumb this down further, fraud.


I do not care. But if you are so certain of what I was, then tell us what was your 'aviation study'. After all, according to you, I am only a janitor, right?

Even in this thread you are busted and fail to respond challenge from many chinese member.


Do not make sh1t up. Regarding the PAK, I said the same thing about the J-20: We need measurement data.


Based upon what technical foundation? The one I just explained again? Of course. But you did not know that despite your lie that 'everybody' know.

Very simple, kid. What was your 'aviation study'?

F-22 is too old, same as you. You are all outdated.

F-22 is a cold-war product, all the things its revolved, the technology, computing, material, theories, machining, all at the age of intel 286.

Computer power used for J-20 design and simulation is roughly equal to all the computer bonding together in America in 1990s.

So you are using your hammer to attack a 4G wireless networks, obsolete and disgusting.

Lucky, USAF knew F-22 better than you:

1) Demolished production line at an order of 187 ---- US makes good stuffs a lot, like thousands of F15/16.;
2) Not for sale overseas ---- Top secret must be protected costly: it's not stealthy before the modern radar at all;
3) Policy of debut next time ---- if it is shot down in a minor war, all the fairy tale gone.
4) To make another better one ---- F-35 is a hope. A fat goose is better than a lame duck, anyway.

Accept it.

F-22 and your generation is toooooooooo old.

 

[Han dominance]

F-22 is too old, same as you. You are all outdated.

F-22 is a cold-war product, all the things its revolved, the technology, computing, material, theories, machining, all at the age of intel 286.

Computer power used for J-20 design and simulation is roughly equal to all the computer bonding together in America in 1990s.

So you are using your hammer to attack a 4G wireless networks, obsolete and disgusting.

Lucky, USAF knew F-22 better than you:

1) Demolished production line at an order of 187 ---- US makes good stuffs a lot, like thousands of F15/16.;
2) Not for sale overseas ---- Top secret must be protected costly: it's not stealthy before the modern radar at all;
3) Policy of debut next time ---- if it is shot down in a minor war, all the fairy tale gone.
4) To make another better one ---- F-35 is a hope. A fat goose is better than a lame duck, anyway.

Accept it.

F-22 and your generation is toooooooooo old.

This.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Likewise with the canards. A design with canards may have the same quantity of flight control structures as the conventional tailplane design, but because the canards are in front of the main wings, we run the greater risk of constructive interference that may raise the body over a certain threshold.

This isn't something you can prove online.

Another person can easily claim that the canards are so well designed that they cause destructive interference, which would lower RCS.

This is why aviation experts around the world casts doubts upon the J-20 being a 'stealth' design despite not one of them knowing measurement data. Unlike you guys' baseless declaration of 'insignificant', their doubts are sound and based upon real physics and experience.

Which is why the experts at Boeing unveiled this...

 

[My-Analogous]

SOURCE: WantChinaTimes.com

A model of the J-20, China’s first stealth fighter, was on show at the World Radar Exhibition held in Beijing between Oct. 16-18. The aircraft is still at the developmental stage and not yet ready for the overseas market, reports the London-based Jane’s Defense Weekly, citing company sources.

The fighter, designed by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, was on public display for the first time at the exhibition, though the company has yet to comment on whether the aircraft is ready for export or not. An executive of Poly Technologies — a defense manufacturing company and subsidiary of China Poly Group Corporation — said however that the J-20 model was only put on display to show China’s military capability in designing stealth fighters, adding that it is not ready for export.

The state-run Poly Technologies is currently looking to become a “whole system” supplier of military equipment and weapons systems to foreign customers, the report said. Meanwhile, the company source said that an increasing number of nations are looking to buy Chinese aircraft to help modernize their air defense systems.

The source said that China scored an important win after Turkey chose the FD-2000, the export version of China’s HQ-9 surface-to-air missile, over rival bids including the US Patriot and Russian S-300 missile systems. He added that nations are now more confident in Chinese-designed weapons systems and Poly Technologies is currently the only company in China that is able to provide full air defense systems to foreign clients.

So from 2030 they came to 2018. HMMMM big progress by US media.

 

[antonius123]

Yes, thanks to me.

Then confirm that you are narcisistic

I assume that 'everybody' includes you? Then you should have no problems telling us what was your 'aviation study'.

Why must you be always OOT when you are already trapped?

See again what chinese members are asking you and you havent addressed yet.
The significance of static canard's rcs contribution of J-20.

That is pathetic. We are talking about a complex body where structures are measured and compared AGAINST EACH OTHER ON THAT BODY. Not against external objects. If a structure is successfully reduced in dimensions and shape to have a lower contributing RCS than its neighbors, then the process starts all over for those other structures. But first, we have to find the structure with the highest contributing RCS and work on that. The bee, the marble, etc, are irrelevant.

But then again, I thought you have 'aviation study' and belongs to that 'everybody' group that already knows this.

What a pathetic blunder...

In fact you are not addressing what people asking here.

We are here talking about RCS of the static canard, in comparison with other object like bump, gap, etc.

Remember your indian fellow claiming that J-20 is not a stealth fighter like F-22, F-35, and PAKFA, just because J-20 has canard. Chinese member explain that static canard contribution to RCS is relatively small compared to other object like gap, bump.

This is what we are talking and discussing.

If I do not know, then upon what technical foundation can you and the Chinese declare that the canards are 'insignificant'? If I am a 'smart ***', it is far better than you because you are a dumb ***.

No, instead we are the ones who should ask you upon what technical foundation can you declare that static canard contribute RCS significantly?

It is your indian fellow that make claim that J-20 is not stealth a/c because of its canard, and you refuse chinese member's explanation that canard contribution should be relatively low.

And as I said, they can assume that J-20's static canard could be designed to behave like small wing in term of RCS.

First...We start with the three rules of RCS control...

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

Second...We begin the three steps of RCS control...

1- Prediction
2- Modeling
3- Measurement

In other words, the 3 steps of RCS control are under the 3 rules of RCS control.

We predict that given X quantity of structures (radiators) in this and that shapes (modes of radiation) in certain configurations (array of radiators) will yield a total RCS of so and so. We model. Then we measure. Under the 3 rules of RCS control, even if we have the same quantity of radiators, their shapes and array WILL yield vastly different RCS-es. The corner reflector is a perfect example. Standalone, the plates will yield their own individual RCS values depending on orientation. But arrayed into a complex structure, the concentration of energy will be an order of magnitude greater than a simple plate.

Likewise with the canards. A design with canards may have the same quantity of flight control structures as the conventional tailplane design, but because the canards are in front of the main wings, we run the greater risk of constructive interference that may raise the body over a certain threshold.

This is why aviation experts around the world casts doubts upon the J-20 being a 'stealth' design despite not one of them knowing measurement data. Unlike you guys' baseless declaration of 'insignificant', their doubts are sound and based upon real physics and experience.

That is only assumption. Remember we are talking static canard.

Bring any citation that can support your claim that static canard will certainly cause constructive interference that will certainly raise the body over a certain threshold. Otherwise, it is confirmed that you are fraud.

And other member has explained to you : what if china design canard so well designed that they cause destructive interference, which would lower RCS.

I cannot dumb this down further, fraud.

Dont call other fraud.
It is you who claim to have solid experience, solid education and solid expertise in Aviation.

If you cannot address what people asking regarding what you have claimed, then you are the one who is fraud.

I do not care. But if you are so certain of what I was, then tell us what was your 'aviation study'. After all, according to you, I am only a janitor, right?

You have asked, and I have answered you in previous thread.
Why always OOT with this?

I have exposed your fraud from the very beginning of our discussion, when you claim that Nozzle and airduct of Pakfa should called "Nacelle", then I busted you with citation what nacelle is, and nacelle is not the same as nozzle or airduct. Should i refresh your memory?

Do not make sh1t up. Regarding the PAK, I said the same thing about the J-20: We need measurement data.


Based upon what technical foundation? The one I just explained again? Of course. But you did not know that despite your lie that 'everybody' know.

Very simple, kid. What was your 'aviation study'?

If you now admit that you need measured data, then why you drag rubbish like the above?

Just admit it that static canard of J-20 could also contribute relatively low RCS compared to other object in other 5 gen a/c (gap, bump, round nozzle)

 

[gambit]

This isn't something you can prove online.

And yet you guys have no problems declaring that the J-20's canards are 'insignificant' contributors.

This is the way you guys dishonestly debate: You make a baseless declaration but demand others support theirs.

Another person can easily claim that the canards are so well designed that they cause destructive interference, which would lower RCS.

I would love to see that.

In theory, interference of both types involves collisions of two or more waves in time phase differences. If both signals are in exact phase, we will have constructive interference, a sum of both signals. The greater the phase differences, usually with 45 or 90 deg and so on, the less the sum. At 180 deg difference, we have destructive interference.

Things get more problematic on an aircraft. The engines, intakes, exhausts, or wing pylons are areas with the highest potential for BOTH types of interference because of multiple reflections, but it depends on the angle of incidence and the amplitude and phase characteristics of EACH structure inside the beam.

Did I lost you? Probably did...

For major outer structures like the fuselage and flight control surfaces, the odds would be for constructive interference base on how edge diffraction signals will impact the leading edge or surface of other structures downstream. Look at the J-20's canards and show us where there would be multiple reflections the way an engine cavity would.

Which is why the experts at Boeing unveiled this...

So what? May be you should look at the word 'experts' and see if that applies to you guys here.

 

[帅的一匹]

J20 won't be exported until year 2025.

 

[jhungary]

Of course it is.
Software is important, does not mean it is more important than hardware.
Whatever the software you used, you cannot change a 50' TV to 60' or a phone-camera to a DSLR.

You can always get more powerful (range and detail) on a bigger size AESA ---- say, with same module on F-35, you can always get a more powerful radar on F-22/15 , that is what they're doing now.

Your physical is specialized for anti-Chinese , does it really exist? 


F-22 two wings is whale bigger than J-20 canards, you'd better go cut them off.

the problem is

It's not the bigger the better.

Currently all TV (Not including Threater Projector) are running at max 4K resolution (4096x2160) It doesn't matter if you have a 50 inch or 60 inch pixel, this is the max pixelated you can get, so for a larger screen, you actually multiplying those pixel to fit the screen, a "Stretch" will then be created.

How well your 60 inch TV can target the stretch is coming from the anti-stretch software you got, so in essence, a 50 inch TV is smaller than 60 Inch TV, but 9 out of 10 times the picture quality from a 50 inch TV is going to be better than 60 inch TV, as the "Software requirment" for anti-stretching increase from a 50 to 60 inch TV, and by definition, you need a better anti-streching software (More calcuation per second) to get the same picture quality on a 60 inch TVs. or the picture resolution will be like this

 

[Superboy]

Canards are cool.

 

[longlong]

the problem is

It's not the bigger the better.

Currently all TV (Not including Threater Projector) are running at max 4K resolution (4096x2160) It doesn't matter if you have a 50 inch or 60 inch pixel, this is the max pixelated you can get, so for a larger screen, you actually multiplying those pixel to fit the screen, a "Stretch" will then be created.

How well your 60 inch TV can target the stretch is coming from the anti-stretch software you got, so in essence, a 50 inch TV is smaller than 60 Inch TV, but 9 out of 10 times the picture quality from a 50 inch TV is going to be better than 60 inch TV, as the "Software requirment" for anti-stretching increase from a 50 to 60 inch TV, and by definition, you need a better anti-streching software (More calcuation per second) to get the same picture quality on a 60 inch TVs. or the picture resolution will be like this

That's a trick. Since you know how to use photoshop, you should know you did it wrongly. You blurred the image which means you removed the details.

The actual image displayed on different TV will be as below:

Now, you tell me, do you want big TV?

IPhone4 and IPhone5S have the same panel except the physical size, they just cut it to 4in from 3.5in.
The resolution become to 1136x640 from 960x640.

But, small panel, though the ppi can be made very high, the visual field will be limited. This is the penalty. That means beyond a short distance, your eyes will cannot distinguish dot and its next. This is why people want a big TV, big visual field. Same thing happen on radar, n particular case, you will don't know the coming aircraft is one or two on a small radar.

Naturally, with the same T/R module (same density), F-22/15 will have more T/R than F-35, resulted a better performed AESA. No reason that more "advanced" T/R module cannot be installed on F-22 but can only be on F-35.

J-20 is no exceptional.

The bigger, the better, always.