In terms of technical details I have revealed far more than any of the other here with their bombardment of photos. The problem I have is people making claims about so and so being un-stealthy those same people can not support their claim on an intellectual level. ptldM3 Is the PAK-FA is going to have fine wire Mesh of FLIR, and one more is it going to have the mesh on the outside or like inside the intake? But do part of the inhaled air bypass the engine and ultilized to decrease its teperture on the pakfa?.
I suspect that you have either never seen a frontal photo of the pak-fa or you have just made that statement in an act of petty either way it is a silly statement.
The pak-fa has the same cant in the random/fuselage as the j-20. And a picture to proves it:
Google Image Result for http://russianplanes.net/images/to52000/051904.jpg
Who was ever talking about the nose or random? The pak-fa and j-20 have a similar nose with the exception being that the pak-fa has a flat chin.
A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22s canopy is 360lbs if memory is correct, it is also very expensive. The up side is that because these canopies have an inherent thickness; they are very survivable in bird strike situations. One piece canopies also have great visibility, and theoretically speaking they can contribute to a smaller RCS because the aircraft will have fewer discontinuities. The mistake most people (Martian, J-20 black dragon) make is that an aircraft has many discontinuities in the form of bay doors, airbrakes, and various other panels. People forget that the J-20 has an airbrake, the pak-fa does not, so while the pak-fa has a discontinuity in the canopy the J-20 has discontinuities in other places.
And as why the pak-fa does not have a one piece canopy is not known, perhaps it will receive one later, perhaps the designers didnt think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect.
Incorrect.
You are free to your opinion. I have never once degraded the J-20 any criticism I have had was in response to guys like Martian. If you have been a member of the forum long enough you would know that the guy blatantly comes into threads and starts attacking the pak-fa, F-35, even F-22, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he likes chest thumping. Now anything I have posted about the J-20 has been a direct response, so while they claim the J-20 has many round surfaces I can counter by saying the J-20 also has many round surfaces in the form of: actuators, nozzles, chin and aft fuselage.
Perhaps you may think the pacify is a mess, and I would say it still needs some refinements, but I can see that you are falling in the same trap as a few others in this thread. Just merely looking at an aircraft does not tell you everything although I can reveal a lot if you understand some of the principles involved in an aircraft being LO; however, so far very few understand.
All are different but have many similarities, the pak-fa shares more in common with the F-22 than it does with the J-20 but all three aircraft are distinctly different.
Yes exposed engine fan blades would increase RCS, I always said that, but by how much is not known. The pak-fa is supposed to be fitted with a sort of radar blocker something like what the F-117 used but without the restricted airflow.
Ive posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?
My criticism, was for the guys at Sino defense, and although I am not a member, I have on occasions visited the forum, and it is appalling at best, the trash, lies, ignorance, and lack of knowledge is enough to make me cringe, so yes, the guys there are chest thumpers and they just happen to be Chinese, I can always call them Sino defense chest thumpers if it will make you sleep better.
Who was ever talking about the nose or random? The pak-fa and j-20 have a similar nose with the exception being that the pak-fa has a flat chin.
A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22s canopy is 360lbs if memory is correct, it is also very expensive. The up side is that because these canopies have an inherent thickness; they are very survivable in bird strike situations. One piece canopies also have great visibility, and theoretically speaking they can contribute to a smaller RCS because the aircraft will have fewer discontinuities. The mistake most people (Martian, J-20 black dragon) make is that an aircraft has many discontinuities in the form of bay doors, airbrakes, and various other panels. People forget that the J-20 has an airbrake, the pak-fa does not, so while the pak-fa has a discontinuity in the canopy the J-20 has discontinuities in other places.
And as why the pak-fa does not have a one piece canopy is not known, perhaps it will receive one later, perhaps the designers didnt think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect.
Incorrect.
You are free to your opinion. I have never once degraded the J-20 any criticism I have had was in response to guys like Martian. If you have been a member of the forum long enough you would know that the guy blatantly comes into threads and starts attacking the pak-fa, F-35, even F-22, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he likes chest thumping. Now anything I have posted about the J-20 has been a direct response, so while they claim the J-20 has many round surfaces I can counter by saying the J-20 also has many round surfaces in the form of: actuators, nozzles, chin and aft fuselage.
Perhaps you may think the pacify is a mess, and I would say it still needs some refinements, but I can see that you are falling in the same trap as a few others in this thread. Just merely looking at an aircraft does not tell you everything although I can reveal a lot if you understand some of the principles involved in an aircraft being LO; however, so far very few understand.
All are different but have many similarities, the pak-fa shares more in common with the F-22 than it does with the J-20 but all three aircraft are distinctly different.
Yes exposed engine fan blades would increase RCS, I always said that, but by how much is not known. The pak-fa is supposed to be fitted with a sort of radar blocker something like what the F-117 used but without the restricted airflow.
Ive posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?
My criticism, was for the guys at Sino defense, and although I am not a member, I have on occasions visited the forum, and it is appalling at best, the trash, lies, ignorance, and lack of knowledge is enough to make me cringe, so yes, the guys there are chest thumpers and they just happen to be Chinese, I can always call them Sino defense chest thumpers if it will make you sleep better.
In terms of technical details I have revealed far more than any of the other here with their bombardment of photos. The problem I have is people making claims about so and so being un-stealthy those same people can not support their claim on an intellectual level.
I suspect that you have either never seen a frontal photo of the pak-fa or you have just made that statement in an act of petty either way it is a silly statement.
The pak-fa has the same cant in the random/fuselage as the j-20. And a picture to proves it:
Google Image Result for http://russianplanes.net/images/to52000/051904.jpg
Who was ever talking about the nose or random? The pak-fa and j-20 have a similar nose with the exception being that the pak-fa has a flat chin.
A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22s canopy is 360lbs if memory is correct, it is also very expensive. The up side is that because these canopies have an inherent thickness; they are very survivable in bird strike situations. One piece canopies also have great visibility, and theoretically speaking they can contribute to a smaller RCS because the aircraft will have fewer discontinuities. The mistake most people (Martian, J-20 black dragon) make is that an aircraft has many discontinuities in the form of bay doors, airbrakes, and various other panels. People forget that the J-20 has an airbrake, the pak-fa does not, so while the pak-fa has a discontinuity in the canopy the J-20 has discontinuities in other places.
And as why the pak-fa does not have a one piece canopy is not known, perhaps it will receive one later, perhaps the designers didnt think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect.
Incorrect.
You are free to your opinion. I have never once degraded the J-20 any criticism I have had was in response to guys like Martian. If you have been a member of the forum long enough you would know that the guy blatantly comes into threads and starts attacking the pak-fa, F-35, even F-22, for no apparent reason other than the fact that he likes chest thumping. Now anything I have posted about the J-20 has been a direct response, so while they claim the J-20 has many round surfaces I can counter by saying the J-20 also has many round surfaces in the form of: actuators, nozzles, chin and aft fuselage.
Perhaps you may think the pacify is a mess, and I would say it still needs some refinements, but I can see that you are falling in the same trap as a few others in this thread. Just merely looking at an aircraft does not tell you everything although I can reveal a lot if you understand some of the principles involved in an aircraft being LO; however, so far very few understand.
All are different but have many similarities, the pak-fa shares more in common with the F-22 than it does with the J-20 but all three aircraft are distinctly different.
Yes exposed engine fan blades would increase RCS, I always said that, but by how much is not known. The pak-fa is supposed to be fitted with a sort of radar blocker something like what the F-117 used but without the restricted airflow.
Ive posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?
My criticism, was for the guys at Sino defense, and although I am not a member, I have on occasions visited the forum, and it is appalling at best, the trash, lies, ignorance, and lack of knowledge is enough to make me cringe, so yes, the guys there are chest thumpers and they just happen to be Chinese, I can always call them Sino defense chest thumpers if it will make you sleep better.
Really, the names of the pilots involved wasnt enough? Photos werent enough? Dates werent enough? Even a weki search would reveal at least 4 crashes.
Ignorance on your part just like not knowing that pilots can opt to dump their fuel in emergencies. How do you know where the aircraft hit the ground and where it settled? All it takes is a hard landing and a muddy/watery environment for an aircraft to come to an abrupt stop, or even better a roll.
Take a look at the following video:
Saab JAS-39 Gripen crashing in landing - YouTube
Some things to note, the JAS-39 did not catch fire, it took very little for it to come to a stop, and the damage to the wings was similar compared to the J-10.
Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.
You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.
Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.
You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.
Even if the J-10 crashed with enough force to create a hole, a rice field which is flooded in water simply flood the hole with water. I also mentioned many times before that pilots can dump their fuel, so the fact that you see little fire damage is likely the result of fuel dumping coupled with a wet muddy environment.
You do not know that an engine has been ejected upon impact it could have simply been that the nozzle broke apart, Furthermore, the picture reveals very little, for all we know the engine could be just out of view of the photo, perhaps it could be many yards out of the photo, the point is that there is only one photo that is revealing only one angle.