Possible J-XX pic?

[ChineseTiger1986]

This is South Korea's next-gen fighter.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I believe this might be the prototype that we will see later.

 

[no_name]

Sigh, things are always more sexy in people's imaginations.

I still like this artistic work.

 

[Lankan Ranger]

Can any one identify this?

 

[SpArK]

Can any one identify this?

I dont know why.. but it multiplies in my PC


???(?)??2_Óë¶þÊ®´óÈȵãÌù[30]·ÖÀà

 

[Lankan Ranger]

 

[Lankan Ranger]

Looks like we can expect an official statement from Ministry of Defence in Beijing, China

 

[PAFAce]

I remember when this clearly computer-generated J-10B picture came out way back in the day (2008 I think), many people, including yours truly, dismissed it for fan art. Then we started getting real pictures, and it turned out to be very close.

So, really, every time I see something like this now, there's a voice in the back of my head going "maybe it's real". Those skilled Chinese fan-boys have turned me into an excitable kid.

 

[Rank]

Can any one identify this?

Photoshop image....

 

[gambit]

An ogive is one of the best shapes, if not the best, to serve as a standard for radar range measurement and calibration...

The ogive as a RCS compact range standard

E- and H-plane radar cross section (RCS) patterns at 4 and 10 GHz are provided (based upon moment method calculations) for a perfectly conducting ogive to be used as a compact range verification standard. The dimensions of the ogive are 36 in. and 9.546 in. long with half tip angles of 15 deg and 20 deg, respectively. Comparison between the calculations and measurements are also provided.

The F-22 is shaped like an ogive...

...As much as possible to minimize its frontal and rear RCS. So good luck with those flats and bulges, boys.

 

[Speeder 2]

The runway certainly resembles CAC's runway 20 though:

chengdu aircraft corporation - Google Maps

hey ding, I read your comment on sinodefence on that 21m stuff, good work!

 

[Speeder 2]

I have 3 questions on that foto:

1. why the nose is ultra thin? or perhaps this misconception is due to the shot angle?

2. though the resolution is low, most things are still quite clear such as some missing white paint at the mid bottom of letter "2" of "20", and some general paint lines on top of the wing areas... yet how come the cockpit looks particularly blurring, resembling what 5-year-old could do with a rubber in his painting class? It's not sunny obviously thus the glass was not shining, fair enough, but how come we can't see a bit clearer thru that cockpit glass?

3. the shape of the wings. It looks pleasantly surprising to me if it were the real one - at least it would shut mouthes of those who smear it as no more than another straight copy of Raptor. Yet, maybe Gambit can answer this one, aren't those curled back wings with all their extra angles/curve lines attracting more RCS, intutively at least to my untrained eyes, when being radared from the rear? It seems to me that RCS from the back of the wings is so different ( not sure a good or bad thing) from other standard straight wing forms from the back angle like those of F-22 for example ).

 

[cloneman]

3. the shape of the wings. It looks pleasantly surprising to me if it were the real one - at least it would shut mouthes of those who smear it as no more than another straight copy of Raptor. Yet, maybe Gambit can answer this one, aren't those curled back wings with all their extra angles/curve lines attracting more RCS, intutively at least to my untrained eyes, when being radared from the rear? It seems to me that RCS from the back of the wings is so different ( not sure a good or bad thing) from other standard straight wing forms from the back angle like those of F-22 for example ).

The RCS is measured by the microwave tools throúgh experiments,so far there is no such a mathmatic model could acturally caculate a plans RCS which mens you can not know its RCS by look or caculation.Who comments on a plans RCS by look ís either a super smart or super fool.

 

[Speeder 2]

The RCS is measured by the microwave tools throúgh experiments,so far there is no such a mathmatic model could acturally caculate a plans RCS which mens you can not know its RCS by look or caculation.Who comments on a plans RCS by look ís either a super smart or super fool.

OK, for the record I guess I'll choose super smart then.

Let me further clarify my question logic:

1. those curled back wing tips (with their extra curve lines / angles, and extra weights) obviously are there for a key reason, right?

2. so far it's not unconvincing to suggest that they are irelevent to better aerodynamics, hence they are there most likely for the sake of RCS, right?

3. so intuitively, or in terms of related general radar theory, do extra curves and angles help reducing RCS, or increasing it? - I think they would logically increase it in general even without looking into the detail theories, agree? unless of course in theory some carefully designed extra angle shapes when used in combination could *offset* (or *reflect* waves into some "dead corners" instead of back to the sender - I dunno how they call that formerly in radar theory) incoming radar waves when calculated with sophisticated maths fomulas , which is then the only justification I can understand why those sticking out curled tips are neccesary instead of being cut off for weight saving only to name a reason. My question therefore was "could *offset* be the case in theory to justify the existence of the curled back wing tips, hence the authenticity of that photo shot from this POV?"

 

[cloneman]

3. so intuitively, or in terms of related general radar theory, do extra curves and angles help reducing RCS, or increasing it? - I think they would logically increase it in general even without looking into the detail theories, agree? unless of course in theory some carefully designed extra angle shapes when used in combination could *offset* (or *reflect* waves into some "dead corners" instead of back to the sender - I dunno how they call that formerly in radar theory) incoming radar waves when calculated with sophisticated maths fomulas , which is then the only justification I can understand why those sticking out curled tips are neccesary instead of being cut off for weight saving only to name a reason. My question therefore was "could *offset* be the case in theory to justify the existence of the curled back wing tips, hence the authenticity of that photo shot from this POV?"

I can only commend on this part.The most diffcult thing of 5th generation fighter desigen is to make a balance between steath,maneuver and supersonic ability.It depends on what the PLAAF wants from the J20.I personally think the PLAAF will put the super maneuver ability ahead of steath,the final one will be the supersonic.So sometimes you need to sacrify some steath ability to get a more super manever fighter.
And personally I dont think we need to discuss something on an unproving picture.I think it should take at least two years that we could get the offical leaking J20 pictures.It is there,but we wont see it untile the PLAAF wants to leak.