The clearest J-20 pictures.

[Chinese Century]

Ignore gambit, the guy is a copy and paste.
The guy is a Vietnamese living in a basement.
The guy has zero knowledge.
Anyone can copy and paste.

 

[DrSomnath999]

I want to prove 3 points to all of you.

1. Metal reflects radar. All of you know this. Exposed metal engine pods on the Su-30 reflect radar and hence, it is not stealthy. You can see the same exposed metal engine pods on the T-50/Pak-Fa. Hence, the T-50/Pak-Fa is not stealthy.

My dear martian
Time & again u have proven to the world that ur stupidity is unrivalled in this planet.
1st of all tell me does russians has a proper engine developed for their PAK FA till now .It is still in developemnt & in testing stage.Why do u think they would test a flat nozzle & nacelles for a protytype which has a derivative of SU 35 engine.

2. Metal-framed canopy on both the Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa reflects radar. Hence, Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa are clearly not stealthy.

sorry martian for ur kind information russians have disclosed that PAKFA canopy is going to have anti radiation coating which means it
is going to have some stealth advantage even if it is metal framed
The protective coating against radiation for the combat aircraft canopy has been developed in Russia - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM

3. Both Su-30 and T-50/Pak-Fa have straight inlets. If necessary, I can post the pictures to prove the T-50/Pak-Fa does not have a S-duct. All of you know that single-crystal metal engine fan blades lie inside the airduct. Therefore, the Su-30 and T-50 are not stealthy at all.

dude plz check this pics which i posted & everyone see ur urselfs appreciate the difference between SU 30 & pakfa air intake
COMPARISION OF SU 30 MKI AIR INTAKES & PAKFA AIR INTAKE

1) SU 30 MKI AIR INTAKE:

one can clearly see the entire circumferance of Engine compressor face & it has no radar blockers

2) PAKFA AIR INTAKE:

now see the pakfa air intake only 1/3rd of engine compressor face is visible
ofcourse when it has final model engine installed it would have radar blockers .

I've proven 3 out of the 10 critical design flaws on the list. I can prove the other seven if you insist.

instead of proving any thing why dont u wait for final production model
DO U THINK WE INDIANS ARE FOOLS SPENDING DOLLARS TO HAVE A STEALTH PLANE WITH .5 SQ METRE RCS

 

[DrSomnath999]

Ignore gambit, the guy is a copy and paste.
The guy is a Vietnamese living in a basement.
The guy has zero knowledge.
Anyone can copy and paste.

but he doesnt copy & paste as he is not chinese but vietanamese

 

[gambit]

oh I remember you now, you are the one who likes to play with words and never really answers to anything.

Correct. He posits things that are not true then demands we disprove him. That is how losers who know they are losers 'debate'. Let him go and stew in his own ignorance and foolishness.

 

[antonius123]

I have seen drunken monkeys more coherent than you!

Most of the time you don't even know what you are on about.

In my post with the equation I listed 4 drawbacks of PO. You missed that completely because you don't understand!

now let's make it even easier for you.

If you say that I dont understand, then why dont you try to make us understand by explaining comprehensively - just like me and Martian did when we explained the drawback of PAKFA in term of stealth shaping? This is your obligation as you drag this statement into the debate.

Now consider that we are clueless as you claim, then please explain where is the connection with your equation and that limitation with Kopp suggestion regarding J-20 stealth vs pakfa stealth?

Also we need citation to support your claim.

You cant drag any theory or equation without ability to explain the relevance with the topic debated then accuse your counter party has no knowledge. Even uneducated person can do the same dragging any theory/article from internet without ability to explain the relationship

Kopp employs PO to gauge RCS

PO for RCS is not ideal .

it is not ideal for example because of the drawbacks I listed.

since not ideal, Kopp's thesis has a self contained value. Not a real world value.

if you understood the equation (as you should because you have experience as you said) you would understand the previous..

QED

That is an accusation. I need evidence from you to prove Kopp really employs that equation as his main reason in his sugestion about J-20 stealthier than Pakfa. Please answer, dont run away.

Kopp doesnt need to employ that equation in his suggestion; I and martian has shown you why J-20 indeed should be stealthier than PAKFA judging from the shape, but ignorant persons like you and martian always ignore these, instead dragging other issue/theory without ability to explain comprehensively

 

[Esc8781]

What kind of scientific proof do you want?? I post a lot in another J-20 threat when debating with gambit, ptldm, and your indians fellows. Debate in this threat is only repetition.

But if you want me to re-post the scientific proof why and how round shape, exposed fan blade, and corner reflector will be much detrimental to RCS, i will do that.



You have the same mentality with your master/gambit, in dragging article without ability to explain and know the connection/relation with the current topic being debated.

Excuse me, but the link is on topic, my good sir.

Ignore gambit, the guy is a copy and paste.
The guy is a Vietnamese living in a basement.
The guy has zero knowledge.
Anyone can copy and paste.

I heard he was a engine maintenance guy, what's your occupation?

What kind of scientific proof do you want?? I post a lot in another J-20 threat when debating with gambit, ptldm, and your indians fellows. Debate in this threat is only repetition.

But if you want me to re-post the scientific proof why and how round shape, exposed fan blade, and corner reflector will be much detrimental to RCS, i will do that.



You have the same mentality with your master/gambit, in dragging article without ability to explain and know the connection/relation with the current topic being debated.

Anyways you were cheer leading Martian2, and you seems to get off topic first.

If you say that I dont understand, then why dont you try to make us understand by explaining comprehensively - just like me and Martian did when we explained the drawback of PAKFA in term of stealth shaping? This is your obligation as you drag this statement into the debate.

Now consider that we are clueless as you claim, then please explain where is the connection with your equation and that limitation with Kopp suggestion regarding J-20 stealth vs pakfa stealth?

Also we need citation to support your claim.

You cant drag any theory or equation without ability to explain the relevance with the topic debated then accuse your counter party has no knowledge. Even uneducated person can do the same dragging any theory/article from internet without ability to explain the relationship




That is an accusation. I need evidence from you to prove Kopp really employs that equation as his main reason in his sugestion about J-20 stealthier than Pakfa. Please answer, dont run away.

Kopp doesnt need to employ that equation in his suggestion; I and martian has shown you why J-20 indeed should be stealthier than PAKFA judging from the shape, but ignorant persons like you and martian always ignore these, instead dragging other issue/theory without ability to explain comprehensively

You really nee to see this. http://www.helitavia.com/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_11.pdf

 

[antonius123]

now clearly either you are super retard or false flag chinese...

go to post #60 and read my reply against your post..retard..looks like your IQ runs in minus...]

and already a lot of explanation amalaks and other two american guys gave you..read before making noob comments..


@topic...

post something relevant guys..no more word twisting game..

Look again your own post #60 bellow:

martian2...you posted the same image 4th time..i can post many links which says China doesn't even have capability to build a 5th gen aircraft..does that suits this thread well???posting from picture sharing site is not a proof..share something logical(if you have any).



give a rest to the carlo kopp..what he thought he says..he maybe drunk or idiot or both..his words is not ultimate truth..post figures and scientific explanation..and credible links to prove it..no more carlo kopp..please..and don't post pics from file sharing site..any idiot can upload a photo like that.

You did not ask any scientific proof there nor brought any single scientific proof to support your and your fellow's claim; instead you were hysterically accusing Kopp, me and martian without any evidence. Is this what you say as a genius debate

Excuse me, but the link is on topic, my good sir.

Anyways you were cheer leading Martian2, and you seems to get off topic first.

You really nee to see this. http://www.helitavia.com/skolnik/Skolnik_chapter_11.pdf

Your opinion and explanation that counts, not the article alone.
The article may not contradict my and martian explanation, but your wrong perception and miss understanding on the article does..

Like I said above - idiot and uneducated person can drag link even copy paste article... but for sure he can't explain any thing

 

[Esc8781]

Look again your own post #60 bellow:



You did not ask any scientific proof there nor brought any single scientific proof to support your and your fellow's claim; instead you were hysterically accusing Kopp, me and martian without any evidence. Is this what you say as a genius debate



Your opinion and explanation that counts, not the article alone.
The article may not contradict my and martian explanation, but your wrong perception and miss understanding on the article does..

Like I said above - idiot and uneducated person can drag link even copy paste article... but for sure he can't explain any thing

Cause I don't feel like explaining anything to you, just read it like I did, just read.

 

[GR!FF!N]

You did not ask any scientific proof there nor brought any single scientific proof to support your and your fellow's claim; instead you were hysterically accusing Kopp, me and martian without any evidence. Is this what you say as a genius debate

are you blind or too dumb to read or you are totally retard????and this is not debate competition..its discussion on weapon's tech..dumbness at best..

give a rest to the carlo kopp..what he thought he says..he maybe drunk or idiot or both..his words is not ultimate truth..post figures and scientific explanation..and credible links to prove it..no more carlo kopp..please..and don't post pics from file sharing site..any idiot can upload a photo like that.

hope you can see now..even a blind can see that i wanted you to post something related to science other than "Kopp" and blank words....now post something related to J-20 if you have or don't waste others time..

 

[antonius123]

are you blind or too dumb to read or you are totally retard????and this is not debate competition..its discussion on weapon's tech..dumbness at best..




hope you can see now..even a blind can see that i wanted you to post something related to science other than "Kopp" and blank words....now post something related to J-20 if you have or don't waste others time..

If you think you are debating weapon tech intelligently, Why do you ignore the abundance of scientific explanation and the credible link from Martian? refusing blindly and bring no scientific explanation/evidence of yourself? Martian's scientific explanation has represent mine.

With your hysterical and baseless response, you can't claim you are discussing cleverly, but dumbly instead.

I am surprised if you are clueless about why round shape and corner reflector is detrimental to rcs. I've told you I have given the scientific explanation in another J-20 threat; and like i said many times as debate in this threat is repetition i dont want to bother to repost the evidence/explanation here.

This is some of them:
Round Shape detrimental to rcs

in here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eady-doing-whole-lot-more-41.html#post2751344

in here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-fighter-already-doing-whole-lot-more-44.html


Corner Reflector detrimental to RCS

in here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...-fighter-already-doing-whole-lot-more-32.html

Find my explanation there by yourself.

 

[Esc8781]

If you think you are debating weapon tech intelligently, Why do you ignore the abundance of scientific explanation and the credible link from Martian? refusing blindly and bring no scientific explanation/evidence of yourself? Martian's scientific explanation has represent mine.

With your hysterical and baseless response, you can't claim you are discussing cleverly, but dumbly instead.

I am surprised if you are clueless about why round shape and corner reflector is detrimental to rcs. I've told you I have given the scientific explanation in another J-20 threat; and like i said many times as debate in this threat is repetition i dont want to bother to repost the evidence/explanation here.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...eady-doing-whole-lot-more-41.html#post2751344

This is one of them:

Find my explanation there by yourself.

I got a better one http://www.theradarreflectorsite.org/WebManuscript/CHAPTER%206.pdf

 

[eachus]

hi guys, here is the deal.
When fighters are similar config with stealthy front RCS then they can survive from first round of attack. T50 with so much 3th G designs on the front view, it has no way to survive within 50KM against either F22 or J20.

dont waste time to study the sides and rear. There is already one 3rd party article draw a fair conclusion.

J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis


Until the maturity of engines, there are more important things for the J-20 to do than to start a "mine's bigger than yours" contest with the F-22. US airbases located within the first island chain(S korea,Japan) are within striking distance of most conventional missiles of PLA second artillery corps. The only viable option is to use the second island chain(Guam,Mariannas,Palau) as launching pads for the F-22s. However, the short range of F-22 proved a fatal flaw in this respect and reliance on mid-air re-fueling make them sitting ducks for the J-20. As such,instead of going one-on-one with the F-22, the J-20's primary mission is to take out high value air assets(re-fueling tankers and AWACs) and to deny access to the combat zone by US carrier battle groups, since the F/A-18 and F-35C are no match for the J-20. The J-20, in addition to hunter subs and anti-ship ballistic missiles(DF-21), will force US CBGs to operate too far out to be effective in the combat zone.J-20's stealth design has similar features with the F-22's, with better structural details than either the F-35 or T-50. Lockheed Martin has discounted certain stealth features from the F-35 due to its smaller airframe (to accomodate into helicopter/aircraft carriers). To squeeze in a high-powered engine, internal weapons bay, avionics cooling system and 8-tonnes fuel, there are quite a few bulges in the F-35's airframe which reminds one of a pregnant whale, spoiling an otherwise smooth underbelly design, and adversely affecting its lower body RCS.The stealthy jagged edge aft section of the F-35 is designed to be invisible to the X-band emission of fire control radars, but would light up by S-band, L-band and UHF-band radar.In order to succeed in a mission to take out AWACs or SAM sites, the F-35 must possess an engine similar to F-22'/YF-23's stealthy rectangular cross-section nozzle., which works best to enhance rear aspect stealth and confuse lower-band radars. However, the JSF program managers decided to abandon the rectangular-cross section for the F-35 due to cost considerations

 

[amalakas]

hi guys, here is the deal.
When fighters are similar config with stealthy front RCS then they can survive from first round of attack. T50 with so much 3th G designs on the front view, it has no way to survive within 50KM against either F22 or J20.

dont waste time to study the sides and rear. There is already one 3rd party article draw a fair conclusion.

J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis


Until the maturity of engines, there are more important things for the J-20 to do than to start a "mine's bigger than yours" contest with the F-22. US airbases located within the first island chain(S korea,Japan) are within striking distance of most conventional missiles of PLA second artillery corps. The only viable option is to use the second island chain(Guam,Mariannas,Palau) as launching pads for the F-22s. However, the short range of F-22 proved a fatal flaw in this respect and reliance on mid-air re-fueling make them sitting ducks for the J-20. As such,instead of going one-on-one with the F-22, the J-20's primary mission is to take out high value air assets(re-fueling tankers and AWACs) and to deny access to the combat zone by US carrier battle groups, since the F/A-18 and F-35C are no match for the J-20. The J-20, in addition to hunter subs and anti-ship ballistic missiles(DF-21), will force US CBGs to operate too far out to be effective in the combat zone.J-20's stealth design has similar features with the F-22's, with better structural details than either the F-35 or T-50. Lockheed Martin has discounted certain stealth features from the F-35 due to its smaller airframe (to accomodate into helicopter/aircraft carriers). To squeeze in a high-powered engine, internal weapons bay, avionics cooling system and 8-tonnes fuel, there are quite a few bulges in the F-35's airframe which reminds one of a pregnant whale, spoiling an otherwise smooth underbelly design, and adversely affecting its lower body RCS.The stealthy jagged edge aft section of the F-35 is designed to be invisible to the X-band emission of fire control radars, but would light up by S-band, L-band and UHF-band radar.In order to succeed in a mission to take out AWACs or SAM sites, the F-35 must possess an engine similar to F-22'/YF-23's stealthy rectangular cross-section nozzle., which works best to enhance rear aspect stealth and confuse lower-band radars. However, the JSF program managers decided to abandon the rectangular-cross section for the F-35 due to cost considerations

oh my!.....................

 

[eachus]

J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis

type in this "J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis" in google, search it you will get full article.
I could post only 1/5 of the article, have fun.


In most articles, the west does not like to compare T50 vs F22,
either no fun or not worth to compare, too obviously are different animals.

 

[Esc8781]

J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis

type in this "J20, F22, F35 and T50 -- A SWOT Analysis" in google, search it you will get full article.
I could post only 1/5 of the article, have fun.

Nice article, but they are underestimating the f-35 it dog fighting capabilities are not on par with the j-20( it might be), but it's avionics will make up for it.