The clearest J-20 pictures.

[eachus]

in the same site Wikipedia, they also have J20 info. I copy the the original words from them

Stealth
Carlo Kopp has suggested that the J-20's overall stealth shaping is "without doubt considerably better" than the F-35 and PAK FA[59],,,,
source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J20_stealth_fighter_jet

J20 Combat range: 2,000 km
F35 Combat radius: 1,080 km
F22 Combat radius: 759 km


F22 is in service, F35 starts production, however J20 is still under improvement so J20 will have better stealth capabilities than it is now. At this moment, J20 is very impressed. For all of above, the stealthy statistic is national secret, baseball or golf balls are just guesses, I dont even want to care about those.


and from your link, what surprised me was the price tags
Unit cost
F-35A: US$197 million (flyaway cost, 2012)[4]
F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)[5]
F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)[5]

J20 Unit cost US$110 million (est.)[4]
Chinese J10 is $28M

 

[gambit]

in the same site Wikipedia, they also have J20 info. I copy the the original words from them

Stealth
Carlo Kopp has suggested that the J-20's overall stealth shaping is "without doubt considerably better" than the F-35 and PAK FA[59],,,,

Yeah...Debunked here many times already.

F22 is in service, F35 starts production, however J20 is still under improvement so J20 will have better stealth capabilities than it is now. At this moment, J20 is very impressed. For all of above, the stealthy statistic is national secret, baseball or golf balls are just guesses, I dont even want to care about those.

Then how can accept what Kopp speculated? Did he actually performed measurement testings on the J-20?

 

[eachus]

Yeah...Debunked here many times already.
Then how can accept what Kopp speculated? Did he actually performed measurement testings on the J-20?

there are a man and a lady walk together.
you are not the family doctor of them(no personal info like cm,lb,etc,,), can you tell who is taller, who is heavier and who has more power? and just by your eye balls?

 

[ptldM3]

Either you are blind or idiot.

J-20, F-22 and F-35 got plenty of curvatures, but barely have round/cylinder shape.
Among 5 gen Fighter, only PAKFA has cylinder/round shape.

Really? The J-20 has no cylindrical shaping? Than what is the J-20’s chin? Or those under wing actuators? Both the Chin and actuators follow the countours of a perfect circle and both are long so they can be called cylindrical, as can the J-20 nozzles and aft fuselage.

You can't accuse him to have lied for the sake of his hidden agenda merely based on your prejudice. You need evidence!

Copp does not lie, per se, he just twists the truth and comes to premature conclusions. Reading much of his work especially the F-35, SU-35 comparison I can say that he merely guesses on much of his claims, such as him claiming the R-77 to be superior than the AIM-7 based on the fact that it has a larger explosive chare and better maneuverability. He said nothing about the seekers, their history of reliability, or counter measures; instead he made a proclemation based on rudimentary evidence.





I also provide evidence, as do others, you just conveniently disregard it. Nothing is good enough for you. Only Martian and Kopp are right.

Fat chance there.







right, mr aviation experience. what is the following equation and what do we use it for?

Looks like the aviation expert could not answer your question.

PO have severe limitations

-it obtains only reflection from surfaces, but not diffraction at wedges
-it fails for wide non specular angles
-it has no dependance on polarization
-it results false shadow boundary contributions because of the artificial boundary between illuminated and shadow regions.

As if any of the jokers here will understand half of that. The only thing these juveniles know is: The J-20 mighty-dragon is sleek and sexy, it is obvious it has been designed with super computers, its black RAM is super advanced and it’s DSI technology is devastating. The Canards are also superior to anything the F-22 and pak-fa have.

On the J_20, I know some insider.

Because of engine problems, some parts are temporary.

4 J20are not the same, until mass production, to finalize the design

J-20's canard RCS has almost no effect, when not in use

You and your “insider” are full of crap. Canards can not magically defy the effects of edge diffraction.

J-20's canard will only during takeoff, and attacks to use

And with the canards being ‘locked’ how does the J-20 intend to stay airborne? Canards, just like other flight control surfaces work to keep an aircraft airborne by constantly receiving data from computers that sent signals to control surfaces. Those control surfaces are almost always moving in order to keep an aircraft from plummeting like a rock.

Also we need citation to support your claim.

So where are your citations? You made a number of fantastic claims in the past yet failed to support them with any citations.

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.

Really Martian credible? This is a guy who believes that ’cold’ canopies are treated with ’RAM’.

Corner Reflector detrimental to RCS

If I was a J-20 fan boy the last thing I would ever talk about would be corner reflectors:

something is very interesting, at the introduction of T50 and J20, US had different comments



in our words is "10 facts, If Su30 is not stealthy, T50 is not neither." hehe,,, even they meant the same.

Two can play this game:



China's J-20 Stealth Fighter - Not as Stealthy as it Looks | Red Dog Report

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with the Teal group an aerospace and defense consulting firm, said China is still years away from perfecting stealth aircraft.


“But then you look the details and you realize this thing is just sort of cobbled together,” he added”


Take, for instance, the canards: forewings close to the nose of the aircraft that provide maneuverability. According to Mr. Aboulafia, “There’s no better way of guaranteeing a radar reflection and compromise of stealth” than adding canards to the aircraft.

 

[eachus]

China's J-20 Stealth Fighter - Not as Stealthy as it Looks | Red Dog Report

Yes, he said China is still years away from perfecting stealth aircraft.
it is not as stealthy as it was at with a shock effect at the first look according to your link:

"When the photos were first released to the public,
The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of average Americans and the U.S. military complex."


from the side and rear view, China still have to polish this weapon. but most importantly is the front view, it kills. with F22's experience, it can beat F35 and F16 hands down, J20 vs T50 will have similar results.


"The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of ,,,,,"
vs T50
“I didn’t see anything …"
“It looks like a plane we’ve seen before,”

those were from air bosses or aviation analyst's lips,
and with you experience, are you sure they are about the same or T50 is more stealthy?

 

[ptldM3]

Yes, he said China is still years away from perfecting stealth aircraft.
it is not as stealthy as it was at with a shock effect at the first look according to your link:

"When the photos were first released to the public,
The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of average Americans and the U.S. military complex."


from the side and rear view, China still have to polish this weapon. but most importantly is the front view, it kills. with F22's experience, it can beat F35 and F16 hands down, J20 vs T50 will have similar results.


"The J-20 struck fear in the hearts of ,,,,,"
vs T50
“I didn’t see anything …"
“It looks like a plane we’ve seen before,”

those were from air bosses or aviation analyst's lips,
and with you experience, are you sure they are about the same or T50 is more stealthy?

I hate to break it to you but if you have nothing intelligent or informative to add take your Chinese chest thumping elsewhere. You boasting that by looks the J-20 will bean t the F-35 and pak-fa does not make it so. Low observability is just a part of the equation, you still need Equivalent or superior avionics to defeat your opponent. For instance, all aircraft still give off an IR emissions even from skin friction, so if the opponent has potent infrared system than there should be something to worry about.

As an example the new OLS systems on the SU-35’s can detect the heat signature merely from the friction created from an aircraft’s skin at ranges of up to 50km, from the rear hemisphere it can detect targets of up to 90km. At these ranges the enemy aircraft will either just be within range to fire weapons (50km) or out of range to fire weapons (90km). Either way a passive missile can be launched even if the enemy can pick you up on radar. And yes, the J-20’s large surface area and large high emission engines will make it an easier target.

You and your hommies also neglect to take into account ECM. By this I mean that even jamming and denying the enemy the opportunity to see you let alone ever having the chance to fire on you. It would not surprise me if an aircraft such as the Prowler or Rafale would effectively be able to jam the J-20’s systems as to make it ineffective. Also how good is the J-20’s systems? Does it’s radar, have the range, resolutions, coverage, ECM resistance, ect to actually successfully acquire a target before being blown out of the sky? Can the radar maintain a lock even when actively being jammed in a high threat environment? How good are the J-20’s weapons? Have any Chinese A2A weapons even been tested in combat? What makes you so confident that the a PL-12 or whatever the J-20 may carry will have a reliable hit rate? Can the PL-12 even distinguish counter measures?

Anyone that claims X aircraft will simply beat Y aircraft based on looks is a clueless amateur.

 

[eachus]

can you guys tell me what are those thing from the prototypes?

5 seconds before F22 was crashed

it was on the prototype, it does not means last to production.

 

[eachus]

And yes, the J-20’s large surface area and large high emission engines will make it an easier target.

you meant the F22 is bigger object than F35 and bigger than F16.
so the F16 will have RCS signature smaller than F35 and far less than F22.
you made my day! haha,,,

such as the Prowler or Rafale would effectively be able to jam the J-20’s systems as to make it ineffective. Also how good is the J-20’s systems? Does it’s radar, have the range, resolutions, coverage, ECM resistance, ect to actually successfully acquire a target before being blown out of the sky? Can the radar maintain a lock even when actively being jammed in a high threat environment? How good are the J-20’s weapons? Have any Chinese A2A weapons even been tested in combat?

even new bays know Chinese defense is less transparent. is it safe to assume things you didnt see do not exist? reliability of j20 system is unknown, J10 is very good no crash so far. however the reliability of T50 is obvious, engines burned, frame crack, the 01 tail is on 02 body.....

 

[ptldM3]

you meant the F22 is bigger object than F35 and bigger than F16.
so the F16 will have RCS signature smaller than F35 and far less than F22.
you made my day! haha,,,

With all the high IQ boasting I hear from Chinese members you guys display the reading comprehension of 6 year olds. I was talking about IR signature, get it? Larger twin engine aircraft give off higher IR emissions than smaller single engine ones because of heat generated by friction on the surface of the aircraft, in essence a larger body presents a larger heat signature.

So the joke is on you.

even new bays know Chinese defense is less transparent. is it safe to assume things you didnt see do not exist? reliability of j20 system is unknown, J10 is very good no crash so far.

At least 5 that we know of.

however the reliability of T50 is obvious, engines burned, frame crack, the 01 tail is on 02 body.....

This is why test aircraft undergo thousands of test flight, in order to uncover and fix flaws. What makes you so confident that the J-20 has not had problems? There is no aircraft in history that has not had flaws in it’s prototype stage, so for you to smugly sit back and imply that the J-20 is immune to flaws is laughable and demonstrates your sheer ignorance in aviation. Don’t expect the Chinese to be so forthcoming in revealing problems with the J-20.

can you guys tell me what are those thing from the prototypes?



5 seconds before F22 was crashed

it was on the prototype, it does not means last to production.

It’s called bay doors, nice try.

 

[eachus]

And yes, the J-20’s large surface area and large high emission engines will make it an easier target.

dont escape from the main point, it is not IQ related. how do you prove J20 has larger surface area than T50 and thus made it a big target? J20 keeps one eye close can shoot T50 down in 50km away while T50 does not know what was going on. you lose the ticket to fight and how do you see J20 rear when you are down?

At least 5 that we know of.

It’s called bay doors, nice try.

we dont know J10 had down 5, if you can not provide a reliable source then you lie.
give us the date for each, picture and source.

"bay doors"? no bay is open you can see the door?

 

[ptldM3]

J20 keeps one eye close can shoot T50 down in 50km away while T50 does not know what was going on. you lose the ticket to fight and how do you see J20 rear when you are down?

And where do you pull those figures from? Your rear end? What makes you think that the J-20 would be able to detect the pak-fa at those distances? Even if I play along with your moronic theory, the J-20 would still have to achieve a lock, this would be difficult merely by the fact that the pak-fa is designed to deny enemy aircraft the chance to achieve one. Furthermore, you would have to contend with the pak-fa’s Electronics warfare (EW) suit. Good luck trying to achieve a lock on a radar that changes frequencies many times per second. Or trying to overcome a internal EW suit that can employ a number of jamming techniques. Data-linking with dedicated EW aircraft will make things that more difficult. If by a miracle the J-20 can somehow defy the odds, it will be within firing range. And again reliability comes into play, how reliable is the PL-12? Just because one or several would be launched, it does not mean that any would hit the target because aircraft come with radar warning receivers and counter measures. This is if the pilot is any good, if a J-20 pilot launches a missile at too far of a range or at an unfavorable vector in relation to the enemy aircraft than that missile will simply fall out of the sky.

we dont know J10 had down 5, if you can not provide a reliable source then you lie.
give us the date for each, picture and source.

A quick Google search would reveal that I am not lying but that you are in utter denial and too lazy to verify common knowledge.



defence.professionals | defpro.com

The 22 April crash became public because a senior colonel had died in the crash and the funeral became too big to keep the story hushed.

So who is a liar? Funny how you demand sources yet you keep making claims without providing sources.

"bay doors"? no bay is open you can see the door?

Nice, you posted a picture of a toy . Here is a picture of the real thing. It’s the actual YF-22 that crashed--and the proof is in the serial number which is N22YX. What is seen in the picture of the toy that you posted is a wing flap.


Enjoy:

 

[eachus]

And yes, the J-20’s large surface area and large high emission engines will make it an easier target.

dont escape from the main point, it is not IQ related. how do you prove J20 has larger surface area than T50 and thus made it a big target? F22 has large surface area than F16, in your moronic theory is that also true? F22 is an easier target?

So who is a liar? Funny how you demand sources yet you keep making claims without providing sources.

that picture has been proved fake.
the "J10" had only one portion of body in the rice field, there were number of doubts.

1) the J10 did not have engine.
2) the J10 did not have head.
3) the J10 did not have wings.
4) the J10 only dropped in a small rice field area, no landing evidence. but how come the body of picture show no much damage.
5) no burning evidence, no engine oil, no gas, no fuel,,,,,
6) no parts broke away around.
7) the ground of the rice field was very flat, no hole, no bum, no lump.
8) that had been proved fake accidence. I saw many more complete pics about that, why the site gave a small cut on one of the picture, what is the point to do so?
9) the web side, the link you gave me looks like a broken page, you spent hours just found that? poor you.


you said have at least 5, where do you find 4 more?

the one above is toy, the one below also a toy?

 

[j20blackdragon]

The PAK FA is a joke.

LEVCONS.

Framed canopy.

Fully exposed compressor face.

Gaps around the inlets.

Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface

discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.

Conventional nozzles.

 

[Esc8781]

The PAK FA is a joke.

LEVCONS.

Framed canopy.

Fully exposed compressor face.

Gaps around the inlets.

Seams, gaps, protrusions, changes in surface material, sudden changes in shape, and surface

discontinuities all over the lower fuselage.

Conventional nozzles.

Hey the Pak-fa is not a joke the engineers already know it's not stealthy, you don't know what's going on, what if they are testing the aerodynamics of the plane? First prototype planes are supposed to be like this like the X-35, see its nozzle it was metal RAM isn't supposed to be on the first prototype aircraft so stop pointing at it.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Unnecessary infrared-search-and-track ball on the nose.