The clearest J-20 pictures.

[senheiser]

I think China can blow the entire country of Vietnam out of the sky with ease.

thats why you lost 1 war with them in laos

 

[Martian2]

The F-117 and F-22 are 'revolutionary' designs in themselves. The PAK is an 'evolutionary' approach from the legacies of the Su-27 and other related airframes to the current trend in airframes with strong emphasis on RCS control measures. The J-20 is also an evolutionary approach from the MIG 1.44. If the 1.44's original layout enabled the J-20 to effect a serpentine intake tunnel system, it is out of fortune and perhaps insightful of the Chinese designers to adopt this particular airframe layout.

That said...The F-117's engine radar blocker is much more sophisticated in design than mere appearance would give...

The word 'absorb' in the above illustration does not mean to 'ingest' the signals as how absorbent materials does it. The word 'absorb' have a context of losses or more precisely to cause losses by any mean necessary.

So as far as the seeking radar is concerned, anything that denies it the reflected signals is an 'absorber', be it from material ingestion of the signals...

...Or deliberate geometric redirection of reflected signals...

The grill assembly is based upon the phrase 'geometric absorber' as well as some use of material absorber.

So based upon what we know of reflection behaviors, there should be no doubt that the PAK can have an engine radar blocker that as far as denial of RCS goes it can be as effective as what the F-117 has. The question is how much of an effect on engine performance will it be since the PAK is supposed to have a much higher engine performance than the non-afterburn F-117.

But of course, practitioners of 'Chinese physics' would have other ideas.

Your point is faulty. You forgot to mention the F-117 and the radar-evading grille is only for subsonic flight. You can't use a grille for a supersonic aircraft. It disrupts the supersonic airflow.

 

[senheiser]

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.

china has to import saturn engines from russia to be able to do a stealth fighter at all hahaha. J20 is fail, pak fa is much much better.

 

[Martian2]

china has to import saturn engines from russia to be able to do a stealth fighter at all hahaha. J20 is fail, pak fa is much much better.

No one has disputed that Russia is currently ahead of China in jet engine technology. The claim is the T-50/Pak-Fa is barely stealthy due to serious design flaws that everyone can see.

 

[senheiser]

No one has disputed that Russia is currently ahead of China in jet engine technology. The claim is the T-50/Pak-Fa is barely stealthy due to serious design flaws that everyone can see.

i am not gonna argue what is stealthy and what isnt its pointless debate

 

[Martian2]

i am not gonna argue what is stealthy and what isnt its pointless debate

What if I told you the official Russian Embassy in India website claims a 0.5 square meter RCS for the T-50/Pak-Fa?

Would you accept your own government's claim regarding T-50/Pak-Fa stealth without dispute?

 

[gambit]

Your point is faulty. You forgot to mention the F-117 and the radar-evading grille is only for subsonic flight. You can't use a grille for a supersonic aircraft. It disrupts the supersonic airflow.

And this argument is pointless. It is already well known that the F-117 was subsonic. The issue is: Is it possible to have a radar blocker that is of a different design than the F-117's? Answer: Yes.

 

[Martian2]

And this argument is pointless. It is already well known that the F-117 was subsonic. The issue is: Is it possible to have a radar blocker that is of a different design than the F-117's? Answer: Yes.

Show me a prototype or the test results for a radar blocker suitable for a supercruising supersonic aircraft.

I want to see a real design and its claimed effectiveness.

I'm getting tired of your b.s. pronouncements. I want to see something concrete.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Isn't it ironic, fan blades are visible in this picture.

But not in a close-up shot, like this picture.

 

[Martian2]

Isn't it ironic, fan blades are visible in this picture.

But not in a close-up shot, like this picture.

Not at all. Sun was at a different angle or different light intensity. It happens all the time. Sometimes an object is in shadow and sometimes it is not, depending on the light source.

In the bottom photograph, the Sun was shining on the very bottom lip of the airduct. Hence, this presented a greater contrast for the camera and the automatic settings went for a sharp contrast (which made the airlet interior too dark).

On the other hand, the lighting in the first photograph was more even and it allowed the camera to narrow the contrast range for the photograph to capture more detail. People who use cameras understand these subtleties.

 

[gambit]

Show me a prototype or the test results for a radar blocker suitable for a supercruising supersonic aircraft.

And show me a credible argument against. Do not use 'Chinese physics'. I have already shown people here radar behaviors long before you got on board. In fact, YOU learned much about the issue from me. This is the first time ANYONE here know what the F-117's radar blocker look like and how effective it is based upon known radar signal behaviors.

So here it is again...

Show me a credible argument using real physics that based upon known radar behaviors, that it is impossible to design and create a blocker capable of working with a supersonic jet engine. Funny that you would crow about the J-20's DSI of being a radar blocker, despite the fact that the DSI was never intended so, but now you are at least implying that such a structure cannot be.

I want to see a real design and its claimed effectiveness.

I'm getting tired of your b.s. pronouncements. I want to see something concrete.

The one with the greatest quantity of BS is YOU, pal. Go back to your dead playgrounds.

 

[Martian2]

And show me a credible argument against. Do not use 'Chinese physics'. I have already shown people here radar behaviors long before you got on board. In fact, YOU learned much about the issue from me. This is the first time ANYONE here know what the F-117's radar blocker look like and how effective it is based upon known radar signal behaviors.

So here it is again...

Show me a credible argument using real physics that based upon known radar behaviors, that it is impossible to design and create a blocker capable of working with a supersonic jet engine. Funny that you would crow about the J-20's DSI of being a radar blocker, despite the fact that the DSI was never intended so, but now you are at least implying that such a structure cannot be.


The one with the greatest quantity of BS is YOU, pal. Go back to your dead playgrounds.

Every time I ask for a mainstream reputable citation, you give me deafening silence.

That speaks volumes about your baloney claims and theories.

----------

However, I am indeed leaving soon. I can't stand it when people refuse to back up their claims with reputable citations. The general rule is that the more incredible the claim, the greater the need for a reputable citation. I can't seem to get a single reputable citation out of you.

One final thing, I already knew about the F-117 radar blocker and I have a color photograph of the gold mesh. As I understand it, it deflects radar upwards. So "no," I didn't learn it from you. I read about it on Australia Air Power. I never discussed the mesh radar blocker, because it is irrelevant to supersonic aircraft.

Anyway, adieu. You really need to work on your reputable citations to back up your sensational claims.

 

[gambit]

Every time I ask for a mainstream reputable citation, you give me deafening silence.

That speaks volumes about your baloney claims and theories.

----------

However, I am indeed leaving soon. I can't stand it when people refuse to back up their claims with reputable citations. The general rule is that the more incredible the claim, the greater the need for a reputable citation. I can't seem to get a single reputable citation out of you.

I have supported my arguments far better than you have in this subject. People here know this. You have never been in the military, never worked on an aircraft, and never worked in a related industry. Why should we take you seriously?

 

[amalakas]

Every time I ask for a mainstream reputable citation, you give me deafening silence.

That speaks volumes about your baloney claims and theories.

----------

However, I am indeed leaving soon. I can't stand it when people refuse to back up their claims with reputable citations. The general rule is that the more incredible the claim, the greater the need for a reputable citation. I can't seem to get a single reputable citation out of you.

First of all you have left a million times already and you still come back!

second, the F-18 has a radar blocker, which shows that at least one design on a supersonic aircraft.

But the point is not the radar blocker.

I give it 50-50 that the T-50 will have/not have a blocker.

I have posted the citation of the ITAE publications but while you demand citations you constantly ignore that one.

There are more than one ways people have pursued to achieve LO. Have you ever considered that the Engineers at suckhoi don't care about the exposed compressor blades?

The problem you have is you are not an engineer and you are not a tech, you see the planes as shapes.. we see the planes as engineering solutions to aviation problems... do you get it ?

 

[Martian2]

I have supported my arguments far better than you have in this subject. People here know this. You have never been in the military, never worked on an aircraft, and never worked in a related industry. Why should we take you seriously?

Look at my thousands of posts. They are filled with reputable citations and solid reasoning. That's why.

----------

At Amalakas, I keep hoping you guys are on vacation. I look around and I don't see you guys. Once I start posting, you guys start popping out of nowhere. Then my aggravation goes up, because you numbskulls refuse to provide a citation when I ask you for one. Once I'm fed up, I need to relieve my stress. Thus, I'm gone again.