The clearest J-20 pictures.

[j20blackdragon]

the J20 and F22 both have a very clean under belly, the Pak-FA is sort of a mess if you don't mind me saying so.

The lower fuselage of the PAK FA isn't just sort of a mess. It's an absolute mess.

First, take a look at the flat and clean lower fuselages of three REAL stealth fighters.

Here's the wannabe PAK FA.

 

[eachus]

you first claimed you saw/read at least 5 of J10 had down, you could not prove any.
that picture show the "accident" limited on 1/5 acre of rice land.
even a monkey knows 1/5 acre landing is almost perfect perpendicular landing.
even without an engine, the J10 still can make huge holes on the soft rice land.
but you only claim the water and mud is enough to prevent fire and smoke on the J10,
a 500 - 600 km/hr falling J10 could not make a den on the soft mud?
do you believe the J10 was made of packaging peanuts?


Where is the engine? the J10 lost engine and the body is still be visible in large pieces?
you like talk in IQs, what IQ are those pictures are?

 

[gambit]

Uptil now no answer. So could you help me on this??

No surprise there, buddy...Considering the American strict regime of modeling/predicting THEN measurement have been disposed of as unnecessary because of:

- Ignorance because of no relevant experience.
- Kopp's misuse and abuse of RCS control methods.

First...

Typical 'open' environment is EM active, meaning there are all kinds of EM signals flying around, from cosmic background radiation (CBO) to cell phone to analog radio to digital data radio to TV to radars and so on. Many of them intrudes into the radar detection spectrum, meaning the centimetric ghz X band commonly used by war waging machines like targeting radars on aircrafts, ships, and missiles. To have any credible RCS measurement of an entire aircraft, a section of an aircraft, or even an outer component, like a wing or a communication antenna, of an aircraft, there must be a way to isolate what we want to measure, namely ONLY the signal that bounces off the body that we want to measure. We know that the body will be used in said 'open' environment but we just want to know how much it will reflect X, Y, or Z freq and ONLY those test freqs.

The best way to do that is to build an EM anechoic isolation chamber. Such isolation is not new because even the high-end audio manufacturers have their own audio isolation chamber testing.

Meyer Sound : The Anechoic Chamber

The ideal anechoic chamber is a room totally free of acoustical reverberations. Any sound projected into the room, at any frequency, is fully absorbed.

Same idea for EM anechoic isolation chamber testing. EM signals travels at the speed of light in real physics, not 'Chinese physics', so in order to truly isolate the body under test, we must absorb any and all non-body reflection sources, such as from the walls. Our chamber is already shielding us from outside sources. So for the F-22 illustration above, if we shoot a typical X-band targeting freq at the nose, for example, we would know with very good precision at what we will receive ONLY from the nose. Signals that reflected off the nose and off the walls again will not be considered because the absorber tiles and pyramids will negate their behaviors. There is a reason why the pyramid shape is used for EM and audio signals but that is for another discussion. We can do the same measurement testing for the vertical stabs, a wing or both wings, the canopy, the landing gear, or just about any structure and outer component with high confidence that the reflected signals will be what we want without being contaminated.

We can even rotate the body to simulate radar bombardment from most attack directions. We can test the aircraft's communication radiation pattern and behaviors, as in if we transmit using the upper VHF antenna, can that transmission be picked up by a ground SIGINT intelligence snooper. Being so isolated, we can have very detailed EM signals behaviors on any complex body.

The next testing regime will be in said 'open' environment, but not completely...

F-22 Raptor History

F-22 RCS testing was performed at the Helendale Measurement Facility, a state-of-the-art RCS measurement facility operated by Lockheed Martin. During the initial phases of testing, the model was mounted upside-down, so engineers could get a good look at the bottom of the aircraft. Later, the model was flipped over so that the top of the aircraft could be examined. Additionally, near-field RCS measurements (i. e. close to the aircraft) were taken for correlation with data taken in the F-22 indoor RCS measurement facility at Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems in Marietta, Georgia.

The word 'look' here does not mean visual. It mean radar bombardment. We want to know what the underside 'look' like in said 'open' environment. The reason why we mount it upside down is because of 'multipath reflections'...

We want to know how much of those 'other' sources will contribute to the aircraft's underside along with out test transmission.

With multipath reflections, we run the risk of our own signals contaminating our reflections:

- Direct/direct
- Direct/non-direct
- Non-direct/direct
- Non-direct/non-direct

Of the above four signals, we want data from only one: direct/direct. Meaning our transmission bounced off the aircraft and took a direct path back to us.

The direct/non-direct mean our direct transmission bounced off the model, then the ground and traveled back to us. That is a contaminant signal.

The non-direct/direct mean part of our transmission bounced off the ground, bounced off the model, then took a direct path back to us. Another contaminant signal.

The non-direct/non-direct mean part of our transmission bounced off the ground, bounced off the model, bounced off the ground again, then traveled back to us. Another contaminant signal.

The final RCS testing will be the aircraft in flight at different altitudes being targeted by different sources from different directions. Then ALL data will be analyzed to see how much one stage's prediction/modeling correlate to the next stage with increased signals contributions from multiple sources, threats or not.

We used this strict testing regime over the decades and it served US well. Practitioners of 'Chinese physics' probably have different schemes but what do I know about that...

 

[Jango]

Thank you for that.

Is the raptor photo in a an-echoic chamber you posted, of the BAF chamber?

 

[gambit]

While some posters from China have an obvious over positive outlook on the J20 during this debate, your statement is equally unconvincing. The above statement for example: by your logic, since we are all talking here, none of us know, so then what is the point of this discussion?

The point is: Caution. Which have been disregarded.

Are we not all posting 'random' photos? How is a photo determined 'random' or otherwise? I myself find the photo comparison makes a lot of sense. A few posts back, Martian2 and J20BlackDragon have compared ten visual points where the J20 APPEARS to be more advanced. You and Gambit's counter mostly consisted of calling them 'clueless', 'Chinese physics', and now 'Feeble Coward' with no convincing argument.

Here is where the convincing argument have been discarded...

Here is where the technical details of this complex subject are selectively discarded by your friends.

In RCS measurement, every item on a complex body is a 'contributor' to the final RCS value. Everything from a panel gap, to a structural gap, to a screw gap, to the pilot himself, and so on...Contribute to the final RCS value.

I will say something that will shock you: In radar detection, NOTHING is invisible.

What we call 'stealth' is that line where we do or do not see the aircraft, or only part of the aircraft, as the airliner illustration showed. That is an example of a 'threshold', something your friends have a difficult time understanding. We can raise and lower this threshold any where we want, but the reason that this threshold exist is because of many things we DO NOT WANT to receive, such as cosmic background radiation (CBO), civilian communication signals, TV signals, and so on. So we calculate the mean level of these 'garbage' signals and set our threshold there. We call that the 'clutter rejection threshold'. What 'stealth' does is to shape the body in such a way that any radar will IMMEDIATELY insert the body into that rejection threshold, meaning its RCS is so low that the radar thinks it is one of the many 'garbage' signals and does not process it as a threat. The seeking radar sees the 'stealth' aircraft, but assumes it to be a part of American Idol and dismisses it. Get it?

So just because the PAK appears to be 'dirty' to the human eyes, that does not mean all those 'dirty' features sufficiently contributed the PAK's RCS to above a threshold. The above illustration have been posted many times before but because it put into doubts many of the Chinese members' claims and understanding, that illustration and my usual accompanying explanations, which are convincing enough to many people, have been dismissed by the Chinese members. For all we know, both the J-20 and the PAK have similar RCS values. We DO NOT KNOW and therefore should exercise caution in making any claims.

Thank you for that.

Is the raptor photo in a an-echoic chamber you posted, of the BAF chamber?

Yes, it is of an F-22 in BAF.

Try this as well...

Shooting a Plane in One of The Quietest Places on Earth | Visual Science | Discover Magazine

An RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 20 aircraft hangs inside the Benefield Anechoic Facility at Edwards AFB

 

[eachus]

“ For all we know, both the J-20 and the PAK have similar RCS values. We DO NOT KNOW and therefore should exercise caution in making any claims. ”

you meant all 3G and 4G and 5G fighters have similar RSC based on your favor as you like it or not.
very funny? no!

In fact, we dont need to be stealthy designer to understand the above of what you said was radar screen on a metal airline on vertical bottom view of that object. pretty much perpendicular to the plan. Stealth fighter excluded T50 are not metal visible.

 

[ptldM3]

Indeed you, assuming you are an expert, have not revealed much of anything.

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 still don't know what the difference is between a random and…non-random photo, but from what I could see, the J-20's nose is only more rounded on the top, but quite angular on the sides and bottom. It is more similar to the F-22 than Pak-Fa whose nose is nearly completely rounded.

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

Now, I don't know what significance is this to an plane's stealth capability, but the dozens of posts you and gambit have posted denying there is a visible difference between the J20 and Pak-Fa's nose is, puzzling to say the least. You rejected a clearly visible difference without going farther for a conclusion, this is the train of thoughts I have problem understanding.

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.

I'll accept what you said about real experts will reveal nothing, and I'll accept you know more about stealth than I do. My question is, why would the F-22 and J20 have this feature? Would it not be more expensive / difficult to produce this kind of 'rimless' canopy than traditional metal-stripping. Is it there just to look pretty? (It sure does)

A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22’s 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 didn’t think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect.

Their original argument was not limited to gaps, but also rivets, protrusions, bumps. Looking at (random?) photos, the J20 and F22 both have a very clean under belly, the Pak-FA is sort of a mess if you don't mind me saying so.

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.

It seems you are claiming all three aircraft are the same (though you only addressed the gap), yet I clearly see a difference?

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.

I skipped some pages on this debate but I recall there was a point raised by Martian that the engine blades aren't visible from the front for both the J20 and F22, yet clearly visible (on my computer I had to adjust the contrast levels to see it) on the PAK. I don't recall you guys had a counter for it, but assume you will say that exposed engine blades won't affect stealth, my question is why would the J20 and F22 go for the effort to hide them?

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.

I don't see any backed source in neither the post I was replying to originally, or your post I am replying to now.

I’ve posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?

I'm being accused of having the thinking capacity of a brick and a chest thumpers merely for the fact that I'm Chinese (the remark applied to me as soon as I made a reply to you with my chinese flags on my avatar). I consider that a racial remark, or at least inappropriate indeed.

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.

Now, I don't know what significance is this to an plane's stealth capability, but the dozens of posts you and gambit have posted denying there is a visible difference between the J20 and Pak-Fa's nose is, puzzling to say the least. You rejected a clearly visible difference without going farther for a conclusion, this is the train of thoughts I have problem understanding.

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.

I'll accept what you said about real experts will reveal nothing, and I'll accept you know more about stealth than I do. My question is, why would the F-22 and J20 have this feature? Would it not be more expensive / difficult to produce this kind of 'rimless' canopy than traditional metal-stripping. Is it there just to look pretty? (It sure does)

A one piece canopy is very heavy, the F-22’s 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 didn’t think it was worth the extra cost, weight, ect.

I skipped some pages on this debate but I recall there was a point raised by Martian that the engine blades aren't visible from the front for both the J20 and F22, yet clearly visible (on my computer I had to adjust the contrast levels to see it) on the PAK. I don't recall you guys had a counter for it, but assume you will say that exposed engine blades won't affect stealth, my question is why would the J20 and F22 go for the effort to hide them?

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.

Now, I don't know what significance is this to an plane's stealth capability, but the dozens of posts you and gambit have posted denying there is a visible difference between the J20 and Pak-Fa's nose is, puzzling to say the least. You rejected a clearly visible difference without going farther for a conclusion, this is the train of thoughts I have problem understanding.

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.

It seems you are claiming all three aircraft are the same (though you only addressed the gap), yet I clearly see a difference?

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.

I don't see any backed source in neither the post I was replying to originally, or your post I am replying to now.

I’ve posted probably dozens of posts with sources regarding this subject. What would you like cited?

I'm being accused of having the thinking capacity of a brick and a chest thumpers merely for the fact that I'm Chinese (the remark applied to me as soon as I made a reply to you with my chinese flags on my avatar). I consider that a racial remark, or at least inappropriate indeed.

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.

you first claimed you saw/read at least 5 of J10 had down, you could not prove any.

Really, the names of the pilots involved wasn’t enough? Photos weren’t enough? Dates weren’t enough? Even a weki search would reveal at least 4 crashes.

that picture show the "accident" limited on 1/5 acre of rice land.
even a monkey knows 1/5 acre landing is almost perfect perpendicular landing.

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 without an engine, the J10 still can make huge holes on the soft rice land.
but you only claim the water and mud is enough to prevent fire and smoke on the J10,
a 500 - 600 km/hr falling J10 could not make a den on the soft mud?
do you believe the J10 was made of packaging peanuts?

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.

Where is the engine? the J10 lost engine and the body is still be visible in large pieces?
you like talk in IQs, what IQ are those pictures are?

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.

Where is the engine? the J10 lost engine and the body is still be visible in large pieces?
you like talk in IQs, what IQ are those pictures are?

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.

Where is the engine? the J10 lost engine and the body is still be visible in large pieces?
you like talk in IQs, what IQ are those pictures are?

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.

 

[Esc8781]

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-22’s 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 didn’t 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.










I’ve 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-22’s 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 didn’t 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.










I’ve 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-22’s 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 didn’t 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.










I’ve 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 wasn’t enough? Photos weren’t enough? Dates weren’t 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.

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? Another question do part of the inhaled air bypass the engine and ultilized to decrease its temperature on the pakfa?.

 

[j20blackdragon]

So just because the PAK appears to be 'dirty' to the human eyes, that does not mean all those 'dirty' features sufficiently contributed the PAK's RCS to above a threshold.

Look everybody.

Even gambit admits the PAK FA has many dirty features.

 

[rcrmj]

Look everybody.

Even gambit admits the PAK FA has many dirty features.

i believe he struggled to get that 'dirty' word out of his tin heart

 

[amalakas]

Look everybody.

Even gambit admits the PAK FA has many dirty features.

i believe he struggled to get that 'dirty' word out of his tin heart

Point being.. if it was painted black you "experts" would all think it is "stealthier".. and that is where the problem is.

 

[gambit]

I skipped some pages on this debate but I recall there was a point raised by Martian that the engine blades aren't visible from the front for both the J20 and F22, yet clearly visible (on my computer I had to adjust the contrast levels to see it) on the PAK. I don't recall you guys had a counter for it, but assume you will say that exposed engine blades won't affect stealth, my question is why would the J20 and F22 go for the effort to hide them?

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.

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.

“ For all we know, both the J-20 and the PAK have similar RCS values. We DO NOT KNOW and therefore should exercise caution in making any claims. ”

you meant all 3G and 4G and 5G fighters have similar RSC based on your favor as you like it or not.
very funny? no!

In fact, we dont need to be stealthy designer to understand the above of what you said was radar screen on a metal airline on vertical bottom view of that object. pretty much perpendicular to the plan. Stealth fighter excluded T50 are not metal visible.

You made a fool out of yourself with this. And actually got 'Thanked' for it. Says much about the...errr...'quality'...of the Chinese members' posts about this subject.

 

[rcrmj]

Point being.. if it was painted black you "experts" would all think it is "stealthier".. and that is where the problem is.

my neighbour's cat is very black, so it must be 'very stealthy' then```kid do you think we are all simpletons like you?

 

[amalakas]

my neighbour's cat is very black, so it must be 'very stealthy' then```kid do you think we are all simpletons like you?

kid ??? I'll put up my degrees anytime !! what have you got ? childhood fantasies of grandeur ??

 

[gambit]

kid ??? I'll put up my degrees anytime !! what have you got ? childhood fantasies of grandeur ??

Say what...??? Yours will be trumped by 'Chinese physics'.