The clearest J-20 pictures.

[gambit]

Thank you Gambit I have to admit I am a noob at stealth and I need someone to teach me, but explain to me why is the f-35's underside is shaped like that? Thanks for replying .

If you are talking about planforming, then even wiki have a reasonably accurate explanation...

Planform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planforming for RCS control is not the same as for aerodynamics and often the two camps clashes with each other. But planforming is about the overall shape. As to why the F-35's underside looks the way it is, it is the result of many things from aerodynamics to RCS control to maintenance to weapons.

 

[amalakas]

Here we go again.

how many times will we have to have this conversation?

 

[homing28]

 

[antonius123]

You are using inappropriate words to start. It is not 'round' which mean circular but it is curves or curvatures. The B-2, F-22, F35, and J-20 got plenty of curvatures in designs. If curvatures are detrimental for RCS control, neither the US nor China would be using them. You and your friend have a flawed understanding of behaviors and how to exploit them.

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.

This is a military aviation forum, not "study of words" forum for etymologists.

You spend all of your time arguing with people over semantics. Does this word mean precisely the definition that fits Gambit's view.? I hate to break it to you, but words are vague. You can use words in their strictest sense or in a more general sense.

You've been wasting everyone's time by constantly harping over stupid words. Everyone else knows the ideas being discussed and it is the ideas that are important. Not your stupid constant complaint over the exact words or group of words. I still remember your ridiculous complaint over my use of the term "airfoil." You wanted to replace the word "airfoil" with a group of ten words or something to that effect.

You're loony and obsessed with wordplay. We're military aviation enthusiasts in here, not etymologists.

Gambit, you're in the wrong forum. You should try "forum for grammarians" or "octogenarians who love wordplay."

In fact, not only he likes playing "Symantec Fallacy", but obviously he is blind or idiot as he cant see any round/cylinder shape on PAKFA and claiming the same shape existant on F-22/J-20/F-35

 

[Beast]

Nice weapon bay flip opened. I hope we can see the main weapon bay open when flying.

 

[antonius123]

You can call it semantics if you like, but if you were in my class way back then, I would have booted you out in the first week of training. You have a flawed understanding of behaviors to start and your subsequent claims took you even further off the true path based upon that flawed understanding. With every challenge from me, people will see that it is YOU who have been wasting their time.

By the way, did you find out who wrote that Physical Optics alone is a failure in modeling/predicting complex bodies RCS?

Empty claim is worthless; self claim is useless, anybody can claim anything in internet.
You need sufficient back up and logic if you want to discuss intelligently.

 

[antonius123]

I’m not comparing either aircraft, you and Martian are. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of how ‘stealth’ works would understand that comparing two aircraft and pulling numbers out of thin air is futile and amateur. However, you and Martian can continue measuring your small penis’s and getting erections by thanking each other and overusing cheesy phrases such as ‘mighty drag-queen’.

Shaping is visible, no need specific numbers to suggest that J-20 has better shaping compared to PAKFA in term of stealth.

Your ‘expert’ compared the F-35 and J-20 and proclaimed that the F-35 has ‘bumps’ and ‘humps’ yet all the while ignoring the J-20’s bumps and humps in the form of DSI, under wing protrusions, and curvature aft and forward of the j-20’s nozzles.

Kopp clear has and agenda and he isn’t shy about it. And he isn’t an expert in ‘stealth’, he has no credentials or experience in that field. Sorry to burst your bubble.

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

Again, as I said: your inability to accept one statement of Carlo Kopp doesn't prove or suggest the other statement of his must be false. You need solid statement from Credible Expert that saying the opposite to prove/suggest that Carlo Kopp may be wrong in his statement.

I have challenged you to bring the source link that you refer for the above Carlo Copp statement, because - as I said - I was afraid you had miss understood him. Why don't you respond?

 

[amalakas]

Shaping is visible, no need specific numbers to suggest that J-20 has better shaping compared to PAKFA in term of stealth.



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

Again, as I said: your inability to accept one statement of Carlo Kopp doesn't prove or suggest the other statement of his must be false. You need solid statement from Credible Expert that saying the opposite to prove/suggest that Carlo Kopp may be wrong in his statement.

I have challenged you to bring the source link that you refer for the above Carlo Copp statement, because - as I said - I was afraid you had miss understood him. Why don't you respond?

Copp hasn't lied. People like this don't lie. It is up to us to understand what he says.

The way the J-20 metrics were used, they prove conclusively nothing. To put it simply. It doesn't get anyone convicted or acquited in court.

 

[gambit]

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.



In fact, not only he likes playing "Symantec Fallacy", but obviously he is blind or idiot as he cant see any round/cylinder shape on PAKFA and claiming the same shape existant on F-22/J-20/F-35

And you have no clue of what you are talking about. The issue is not the diameter as in cylinder or sphere, it is the curvature itself.

Here we go again.

how many times will we have to have this conversation?

He is trying to gain as much 'Thank' as he can. Actual scientific and engineering truths and relevant experience does not matter.

 

[gambit]

Shaping is visible, no need specific numbers to suggest that J-20 has better shaping compared to PAKFA in term of stealth.

That is really amazing. By that argument, the F-117 should not be able to take off the ground, let alone flew in combat, if we are to go by the ignorance of aerodynamics because based upon looks alone, how do you know if those facets allows the aircraft to fly? Simply put, if you have no knowledge of RCS control methods at all, flawed as it is, thanks to the American 'stealth' aircrafts, you would not be able to make this clearly stupid assertion that no measurements are necessary.

Really amazing...Radar and aviation experts around the world over have been fools all this time. Do let us know when ID have a 'stealth' fighter.

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

Again, as I said: your inability to accept one statement of Carlo Kopp doesn't prove or suggest the other statement of his must be false. You need solid statement from Credible Expert that saying the opposite to prove/suggest that Carlo Kopp may be wrong in his statement.

I have challenged you to bring the source link that you refer for the above Carlo Copp statement, because - as I said - I was afraid you had miss understood him. Why don't you respond?

Being educated does not immune a person from being a liar. The scientific community have the peer review process to verify any claim. What Kopp did and said demand verification. Kopp have no experience in aviation in general, let alone in avionics in particular, less in radar, and even less in working in low radar observable designs. So yes, Kopp's claims should be suspect.

 

[Esc8781]

If you are talking about planforming, then even wiki have a reasonably accurate explanation...

Planform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planforming for RCS control is not the same as for aerodynamics and often the two camps clashes with each other. But planforming is about the overall shape. As to why the F-35's underside looks the way it is, it is the result of many things from aerodynamics to RCS control to maintenance to weapons.

Sorry Gambit, one more question what does the f-35's Electrohydrostatic actuation does please? Thanks.

 

[gambit]

Sorry Gambit, one more question what does the f-35's Electrohydrostatic actuation does please? Thanks.

It is an evolution of the electro-hydraulics system in the current fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW-FLCS).

Currently, there is a central source of hydraulic pressure, actually there are two (primary and utility), but for simplicity's sake, we will stay with just one for now. This centralized source supply all the hydraulic actuators. If anything happen to the source, the aircraft is screwed, so to speak. If there is a damage somewhere, loss of SUSTAINED pressure can affect the entire hydraulic system leading to degraded flight controls effectiveness in the most crucial times.

What the new system in the F-35 does is to decentralized that 3000 lb/psi source. One reason for that 3000 lb/psi figure is because of the distance the hydraulic fluid has to travel, even in a closed system. What we call 'fly-by-wire' is command/control signals from the FLCS computer to the hydraulic actuator and the actuator respond -- based upon availability of hydraulic pressure from the centralized source. In the new system design, each actuator is responsible for its own hydraulic pressure -- based upon the availability of electrical power.

Avionics Magazine :: Power-By-Wire

In the new electro-hydrostatic design for the JSF, "We kept the (electrical) control system relatively the same...We have a flight control computer that interfaces with the new actuation system. We’ve yanked out the fluid system, and put in a new 270-volt DC electrical power system. We have two channels of power that provide the muscle to each actuator," Eicke explains.

The new electrical system provides power to five dual power electronics units, one for each actuator. The power electronics unit regulates the power to drive dual motor/pumps, essentially two independent hydraulic systems self-contained in each actuator. The separate control layer provides the signal to the actuator power electronics to "tell" the actuator which way to go. The dual motor/pumps convert the DC voltage electrical power into hydraulic power, allowing the piston on the actuator to move the control surface.

While the F-16 actuators operate at 3,000 psi, the new electric actuator operates from 300 to 3,000 psi, providing power on demand.

So for the F-35, we have the typical fly-by-wire FLCS with its command/control signals working with the new hydraulics design whose many small, discrete, robust, and isolated pumps where each actuator have only one responsibility -- wherever it is.

I doubt the J-20 has this.

 

[antonius123]

And you have no clue of what you are talking about. The issue is not the diameter as in cylinder or sphere, it is the curvature itself.

I have.
In fact you are demonstrating idiocy if you cannot distinguish "round shape" vs curvature.

He is trying to gain as much 'Thank' as he can. Actual scientific and engineering truths and relevant experience does not matter.

Again, as I said: "self claiming and empty word are useless, the content and logic of your statement that counts"

 

[antonius123]

That is really amazing. By that argument, the F-117 should not be able to take off the ground, let alone flew in combat, if we are to go by the ignorance of aerodynamics because based upon looks alone, how do you know if those facets allows the aircraft to fly? Simply put, if you have no knowledge of RCS control methods at all, flawed as it is, thanks to the American 'stealth' aircrafts, you would not be able to make this clearly stupid assertion that no measurements are necessary.

Really amazing...Radar and aviation experts around the world over have been fools all this time. Do let us know when ID have a 'stealth' fighter.

Your argument is funny as nothing to do with my argument

Again you are bringing empty claim by saying that the above argument of mine is againts aviation expert opinion.

Even the expert Carlo Kopp himself said that by seeing the shape of J-20 (and PAKFA), he suggest that J-20 will be stealthier than PAKFA

Being educated does not immune a person from being a liar. The scientific community have the peer review process to verify any claim. What Kopp did and said demand verification.

Doesn't immune from being a liar doesn't mean that he is automatically a liar or lie in every statement of his. You are playing with "Logical Fallacy" here. You need evidence before you accuse someone of being lying, otherwise people will consider you as a slanderer.

And you cannot demand that Copp's statement must be supported by his peer/other expert UNLESS you could bring contra-statement from other credible expert. Because if Carlo Copp's statement is a joke, then there must be other experts appear, take this golden opportunity and bet their reputation by confronting Copp openly in journal/magazine/etc, and you should be able to find it and show it here.

Kopp have no experience in aviation in general,[/B] let alone in avionics in particular, less in radar, and even less in working in low radar observable designs. So yes, Kopp's claims should be suspect.

This is again your empty claim; you should check the truth before you throw any claim.

Look at my reference bellow:

Carlo Kopp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carlo Kopp is a prominent Australian freelance defence analyst and academic who has published ~300 articles in trade publications such as Defence Today, Air International, Journal of Electronic Defense, Jane's Missiles and Rockets, Australian Aviation and the Asia Pacific Defence Reporter on matters of aerospace technology, stealth, information warfare and Australian defence policy

How could someone with no experience and credibility as you claim - is admitted as "defence analyst and academic, and could speak / write in so many prominent journal and publication such as Defence Today, Janes, etc without damaging those journal's Reputation/Crebilitity? Please dont make me rolling of the floor laughing

In fact if your opinion is against his, then you should be considered as inexperienced or having inadequate knowledge, as you have no credibility and reputation against him

 

[antonius123]

Copp hasn't lied. People like this don't lie. It is up to us to understand what he says.

The way the J-20 metrics were used, they prove conclusively nothing. To put it simply. It doesn't get anyone convicted or acquited in court.

I am sorry, but your saying as above only reinforces that you and your fellow like delusion instead the truth.