Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread

[MiG-23MLD]

that is incorrect. in the first instance we don't refer to it as stealth. its about signals management. signals are reflected, refracted and or redirected.

it is also clearly incorrect to state that its (RAM) applied in the areas of most reflection. Its applied to areas where you want to cause a refraction or "sinking" of said signal. signals don[t "bounce" once. they impact all over the aircraft because its an all aspect problem. I've worked on systems where it was applied to an area that would not even raise an eyebrow. Its managed against the likely threat area thats being entered. Its not a man for all seasons. Even the SR-71 had active management in place to deal with specific soviet/chinese systems. they were activated when needed against specific geographical locs.



They are NOT. Please don't make claims which are clearly incorrect.



Its got very little to do with brute power of the radar system. in fact pole tests using ground based very very powerful systems can struggle to detect an actively managed aircraft.

Its got nothing to do with making the aircraft invisible, it can also be about spoofing the signal, or even to dislocate the return enough to cause disruption .




and for the last time, we don't call it stealth, its called stealth in the open press because they don't understand the concept and its sound bited down to give them something easier to digest.



and those canards are moving relfectors which are impact across multiple other boundary generators, as well as hard surface elements that aren't handling tools.



you can't have a canard and be LO. once you enter all aspect sensor country that canard is a transducer - esp when its got the winged surface area of a small plane in its own right.




again, this is nonsense. VLO assets use waypoint management as one tool in strike map. the aircraft is part of a package - the package is what contributes to VLO - its not about the asset.

you need to exercise more restraint in making claims about capabilities that you're obviously unfamiliar about - its misrepresenting things to those who make think that you're accurate in your descriptions when some of them are very very wrong.

Last time i posted my post was deleted because i claim that light and the electromagnetic waves are the same and radars use electromagnetic waves.
That the Sun and a radar emit electromagnetic waves.
That Heliography needs especific angles to focus electromagnetic energy in form of light in the same way faceting does.

Stealth is an optical phenomenon but it does not use light but other electromagnetic frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum
My post was deleted because i claim that
That light the same we use to see an F-22 is an electromagnetic wave

So i will put simple questions.

Why an F-117 can be seen with light (electromagnetic energy) and is harder to see with radar?
What is the difference between a radar that emits electromagnetic waves and the Sun a light bulb and a match?


If you prove me light is not an electromagnetic wave and radar does not use electromagnetic waves you will win the argument.


Why electromagnetic energy disipates and fades with distace what this has to do with the ability to illuminate of a hand light, the sun and the radar`s ability to detect and detecting range.

Why RAM is not similar to objects that absorb light and are black?
what is the difference between an EYE and IRST and a RWR?

Mod edit: You had been Warned, and had a post deleted after completely ignoring the response from a Mod who does have experience in Signal Management. To reiterate, the term 'stealth' is something used largely by the media and internet junkies who do not really understand the underlying concepts, but want/need a term to describe what is going on. At a basic level, Signal Management or LO/VLO is about managing ones presence in a manner sufficiently so that ones opponent has little to no option to respond. Due to the fact that what needs to be managed differs depending on the opponent/threat matrix, and the varying abilities to detect and respond, one set of technologies and methodologies does not fit all, nor is it static. It can be far more than just managing the RCS of an aircraft, there are other signatures which also need to be considered as well. While this is being pondered, take a month off.
-Preceptor

 

[funtz]

its about signals management. signals are reflected, refracted and or redirected.

transmitted and received?

 

[south]

well we dont need to speculate anymore, APA have released their 'analysis' on this aircraft...
available on their website

apparently 'undoubtedly has better stealth performance than the Pak Fa and JSF... '

wow those guys are good..

 

[Abraham Gubler]

well we dont need to speculate anymore, APA have released their 'analysis' on this aircraft...
available on their website

apparently 'undoubtedly has better stealth performance than the Pak Fa and JSF... '

wow those guys are good..

What I don’t understand is how they can say:

2. The stealth shaping is without doubt considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and, even more so, than that seen in the intended production configuration of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

And then say:

10. The aft fuselage, tailbooms, fins/strakes and axi-symmetric nozzles are not compatible with high stealth performance, but may only be stop-gap measures to expedite flight testing of a prototype.

So the only way their statement 2 can have any validity (assuming it is actually correct for the sake of argument) is that if the design is only a “stop-gap” and some more stealthy later design is unveiled.

A classic case of wishing…

 

[south]

What I don’t understand is how they can say:



And then say:



So the only way their statement 2 can have any validity (assuming it is actually correct for the sake of argument) is that if the design is only a “stop-gap” and some more stealthy later design is unveiled.

A classic case of wishing…

yeah liked that one too.. :lam

i also liked 4 - because it looks like an F22 nose it will have F22 nose aspect RCS....

and 8 - planform alignment is impossible to fully assess - well how then are you proposing to state the RCS is considerably better.

 

[gf0012-aust]

transmitted and received?

both, a plane is a flying transducer.

if you don't manage what you emit, then you're still providing a signal "tell."

the SR-71 as far back as the early 60's was able to actively manage its footprint at a specific spectrum, ditto for the F-117 although its method was less sophisticated due to platform size issues and development intent...

 

[gf0012-aust]

and 8 - planform alignment is impossible to fully assess - well how then are you proposing to state the RCS is considerably better.

those idiots are priceless.

multiple boundary layer generators and planform alignment is impossible to assess? go figure. lets all fight at fixed altitude in a fixed line of attack and make sure the enemy has a sensor grid that only works in certain parameters - then we can generate its RCS figures.

this would have been done on their locally developed super duper algorithm done on a heavy duty laptop without the benefit of a pole test etc...

what a bunch of pseudo intellectual techno-muppets. :rolling

 

[aussienscale]

OMG !!!! I am now totally convinced that we should not buy the F35 for the RAAF and insist the the US Government re-open the F22 production line as a matter of urgency for the sake of Australian Air Supremecy !!!

Give me a break, slow news week :

Amazing intel from some pretty ordinary pictures, lets take a reality check and look at the basic facts that GF, and others that have an idea about stealth (ooooppsss sorry) has listed on more than enough ocassions, I am certainly no expert in this subject but have been around long enough and seen enough to come to some better conclusions than what I have read so far !!

And I do know for a fact that what is out there with regards to this subject and actual tactical (read very secret) capabilities for each different platform is not even remotely reported or understood by the media. To take even basic knowledge and apply it to a new platform is only a fraction of what the end result of that system is about, let alone having a true understanding of what "SIGNAL MANAGEMENT" is all about.

Lets hope the new year brings new argument ?? I know that a lot of info is only listed on the net, but guys don't take it for gospel, listen to what these guys have to say, and for god sake don't quote wiki word for word !!

This is real Fanboi territory, don't try to win an argument by google/wiki with these guys !! as has been repeatedly shown in the past and looking at my crystal ball in the future, you
WILL BE SHOT DOWN !!

 

[Feanor]

well we dont need to speculate anymore, APA have released their 'analysis' on this aircraft...
available on their website

apparently 'undoubtedly has better stealth performance than the Pak Fa and JSF... '

wow those guys are good..

Now all we need is to hear Colonel Grisha's words of wisdom on the subject matter, and we will have reached enlightenment.

 

[AegisFC]

Now all we need is to hear Colonel Grisha's words of wisdom on the subject matter, and we will have reached enlightenment.

I'm waiting for Sprey's commentary as well. I can't wait to hear about how only a radarless interceptor the size of an F-5 can beat this new commie menace.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

I'm waiting for Sprey's commentary as well. I can't wait to hear about how only a radarless interceptor the size of an F-5 can beat this new commie menace.

I may be misinformed but i think the Iranians have got that in mass production already, it may also have active cloaking stealth coatings on the rear view mirror and the ramming pointy thingy at the front end!!!
I hope it's not so...
Mac

 

[Feanor]

I may be misinformed but i think the Iranians have got that in mass production already, it may also have active cloaking stealth coatings on the rear view mirror and the ramming pointy thingy at the front end!!!
I hope it's not so...
Mac

The real genius of aero-space design. Iranian suicide-jets-fighters. They only cost 5$ per lbs, but can each ram and take out an F-22, with its pointy nose.

 

[NICO]

As much as I enjoy APA articles and like the fact that they go against the grain, we know virtually nothing of JXX. We don't know the requirements,engines,radar,nothing. We have a couple of bad pictures to go by and already this thing is better than F22 and PAKFA. We don't even know if this is an X- or Y- plane, maybe it's just a one off or as someone suggested there might be 2 jets that aren't quite identical. Maybe with different roles? One geared more towards fighter role the other more a strike/bomber? Maybe they are just testing a bunch of technology.

Seems front canards are causing a whole lot of discussion. I have seen so many "experts" comments, I didn't know we had so many aerodynamicist on the internet. My 2 cents: maybe the Chinese thought it just looked good that way with canards.

A lot of people are also making the mistake of assuming that Chinese tech rivals US or Russian technology. Everybody is saying JXX will have lots of range and huge fuel tanks, how do you guys know that? Who has the SFC of these engines? How do you know if this thing isn't already a few tons overweight? Maybe it's over engineered, maybe the engines don't produce enough trust and really suck gas like no tomorrow. Has someone done the math/wind-tunnel work already and we know how good aerodynamically this bird is?

How can one make a judgment call this early on this jet? I know it is tremendous fun to speculate but some people like APA should know better. Again, I enjoy APA and like the fact that they find a lot of open source info and give us a different point of view and not just PR clippings from LMT or Boeing but can't we wait a bit before making such categorical statements?

 

[Feanor]

APA is not a valid alternative opinion. It's garbage.

 

[marioasoler]

Looks like the Fxx Widow!

Dont quote me on the exact name, it was between the F22 and the Widow competing for contract. :

 

[NICO]

APA is not a valid alternative opinion. It's garbage.

Do you have any suggestions where to look? Some of the comments on AvWeek are even worse than APA. They are so inaccurate, historical wrong or so politically tainted I don't even really bother any more checking out the comments on Alyvweek. Ex: some guy explained how JXX is a pure copy of McDonnell's ATF entry? Then it kind of degenerated into some kind of rant against Obama. What a surprise! The articles are pretty good although I admit I have never liked AVweek, I have been a subscriber to Flight International since I have been a kid.

I do like Defense Talk as you guys do try to police some of the worse stuff out there.

 

[nangxi]

F20 is the proud of chinese,now they was testing TVC WS-15 for J-20.

 

[jeffb]

APA is not a valid alternative opinion. It's garbage.

Crikey actually ran a story based on that APA article, I left a couple of comments on it eventually having someone from APA themselves respond and finally ending with this from Crikey's writer.

I think APA offers learned and informed and expert assessments of these matters. I’ve never, speaking for myself, had to come to a conclusion as to how right or wrong they are about the F-22 because for this person it is the process that matters, as without a critical process the risk of arriving at the wrong decisions can only be avoided by good luck.

:

Article is here http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/01/04/two-aircraft-that-put-pressure-on-the-jsf/

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think APA offers learned and informed and expert assessments of these matters. I’ve never, speaking for myself, had to come to a conclusion as to how right or wrong they are about the F-22 because for this person it is the process that matters, as without a critical process the risk of arriving at the wrong decisions can only be avoided by good luck.

its a good thing I've got a silicon keybboard cover, I just sprayed drink all over my keyboard from giggling...

Last sentence - meet first sentence..

The problem for these fools is that they are so idealogically wedded to being anti-JSF and anti-Govt (re the F-22) that they've removed any excuse to be reasonable and quote real facts less they destroy their credibility amongst their faithful following of techno-moonies.

I can still recall the ewarfare and sig specialists at DSTO being flabbergasted at Kopps self pronounced view that he was the most learned person in australia on radar systems and their behaviour.... all this without having a clearance to see anything thats outside of the internet.

APA don't even realise that the mainstream press have worked out that they're damaged goods,

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I met Ben Sandilands at a Wedgetail thing in ought-7 and he was a nice guy and smart. He knew everything there was to know about commercial aviation but by his own admission didn’t know anything about defence aviation. It would appear by what he has written on the F-35 program and future air combat that he has the APA people in his ear all the time. They are prolific phone callers of opinion makers who haven’t learnt to screen their calls or told them off. But I wouldn’t worry too much about this nonsense. It is only “Crikey” – born a slander rag it will die a slander rag.