i think how much the j-20 canards contribute to rcs increase is much less than the t-50 su-27 style 2 pieces canopy,
Not this fanboy garbage again, firstly, multiply peice canopies are used in the B-2 and silent eagle, they were also used in the F-117 as well as many American stealth prototypes such as the YF-23; a single peice canopy eliminates the need for a joint. However, all aircraft have joints whether it's access panels, bays, or flaps, so while the J-20 may have no canopy joint it may very well have more overal joints, so now the point becomes mute. Further, aircraft that do have multi peice canopies tend to have canted joints so that the EM does not come back to the receiver.
Are you making this up or are you going off of what J-20 fanboys tell you? A sphere, like that of an IRST, is ideal at dissspating EM energy, and that can be varified:
4.3 Radar Cross Section (RCS)
So an IRST of about 6" has a rcs of 0.018 M2
exposed engine fan all three combined.
And who said they would be exposed?
and dont steal americans tech radar blocker.
A Chinese talking about not stealing
By your logic the J-20 should not steal canards from the Rafale or all moving vertical stabs from the pak-fa, or a single peice canopy from the F-22, do you see how silly you sound?
Also by your logic China is stealing Russian tech by simply attempting to built a 'steath' aircraft because the stealth formula was writen by a Russian, this is how the American were able to create the F-117, an aircraft that used radar blockers
where is ur plasma stealth btw?
What do you care? Even if it was present on the pak-fa it's not as if the designers would throw a parade acknowledging the aircraft had 'plasma stealth'.
Apart from the canards (which don't contribute much RCS at all), the overall stealth shaping, the flat underside of the fuselage, the one-piece canopy, the intakes, the stealth geometry, and the constant airfoil angles makes the stealth design much more effective than that of the T-50.
Canards don't matter much at all, especially when they are RAM-coated.
Carlo Kopp and Fisher make an excellent analysis from what images we have of the J-20.
Regarding canards, a conventional aircraft is a continues surface, so when the EM wave traverses the body of a conventional aircraft the EM energy scatters or diffracts when it reaches an abrupt area (like the end or edge of a wing). When this scattering happens the EM energy spreads out in a conical fashion (edge diffraction) on most aircraft the edge diffraction occurs so that the EM energy is directed away from the aircraft, usually this is when most EM energy scatters off of the horizontal stabilizer. The J-20's canards can pose a problem because they are not a continues surface, instead they abruptly stop and cause edge diffraction to occur in front of the aircraft as opposed to behind it.
Regarding flat fusalage, a flat fusalage is the simplest and cleanest form of dispersal, the pak-fa's fusalage is complex. For instance, the F-117 used extensive and complex geometry to scatter EM energy while the F-22 took a simple approach to scatter EM energy, both methods work.
The single canopy nonesense is just fanboy hogwash that you ate up.
And the J-20's wing geometry, not only canards have very little edge diffraction points where as aircraft such as the F-22 and pak-fa do not have this problem.
