China's aviation heritage: J-10A Vigorous Dragon --> J-10B Vigorous Dragon with advanced Diverterless Supersonic Intake --> J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter
PAK FA / T-50 / Project 701
"The maiden flight of the T-50 / Project 701 / PAK FA, the first Russian ... that China declined to participate in this project given a belief that Russia stood to gain ..."
From my January 23, 2011 posts:
Russian T-50 is clearly inferior to China's J-20
It's obvious to everyone that the Russian T-50 is very crude and far behind China's J-20.
This is what a polished J-20 stealth fighter prototype looks like:
China's J-20 stealth fighter
And this other Russian T-50 is a crude (e.g. exposed rivets, exposed engine fan blades, metal-framed cockpit canopy, no RAM coating, no Serpentine air inlets, no DSI, etc.) attempt at a stealth fighter:
Russian T-50. Is it even stealthy? Look at those giant engine fan blades.
General Brady on T-50: “I don’t know if it’s really a fifth-generation aircraft”
The Russian T-50 prototype falls far short of expectations (e.g. does not meet most of the ten criteria that I have formerly listed for a stealth fighter design). The biggest failing is in the design of the air inlets. The Russians didn't bother at all to shield the engine fan blades from enemy radar. Also, the metal frame on the cockpit canopy is another clear lack of effort.
If you believe my opinion is unfair in saying that the Russian T-50 falls far short of a modern fifth-generation stealth fighter, would you accept the opinion of an expert instead? Four-star general Roger Brady does not believe that the Russian T-50 qualifies as a fifth generation stealth fighter: “I don’t know if it’s really a fifth-generation aircraft” (see article below).
In conclusion, I am willing to revise my assessment of the Russian T-50, as judged by my list of ten objective stealth design features, if there is a serious re-design. I stand by my claim that the current Russian T-50 design (if allowed to stay mostly intact) is not a worthy competitor to China's J-20 or U.S. F-22 and F-35.
Leaders not impressed by new Russian fighter - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times
"Leaders not impressed by new Russian fighter
By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 22, 2010 19:53:27 EDT
The flying debut of Russia’s answer to the F-22 Raptor isn’t wowing Air Force leaders.
Dubbed the T-50 or PAK-FA, the fifth-generation stealth fighter jet made its maiden flight Jan. 29 — 47 minutes over eastern Russia — and has flown at least twice since then. The twin-engine jet will replace the MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, both fourth-generation front-line fighters.
The first operational T-50s should be delivered in 2015, the same year the Air Force expects its first F-35 Lightning II. Also a fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 has a single supersonic engine and stealth capabilities.
“I didn’t see anything … that would cause me to rethink plans for the F-22 or F-35,” Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters Feb. 18 at the Air Force Association’s winter conference, held in Orlando, Fla.
“Russia has a robust [aircraft industry],” Donley added. “This is not a surprise in that context.”
The PAK-FA resembles the F-22 — distinctive tilted rear tail fins and all — and has many of the same high-tech features, including digital avionics, a phased-array radar and communications equipment to link the fighter to command and control centers, according to the Russian news agency Tass.
The Air Force ordered the last of its 187 F-22s in 2009. Russia has not had a new fighter in nearly 20 years; the Indian air force is also sponsoring development of a version of the T-50.
“It looks like a plane we’ve seen before,” Gen. Roger Brady, the air boss for NATO and commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said at the conference.
Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces, made clear his impression of the fighter: “I guess the greatest flattery is how much they copy you.”
Still, the four-stars wonder whether the T-50 will live up to its fifth-generation billing.
“I don’t know if it’s really a fifth-generation aircraft,” Brady said. “What I do know is that it’s very clear that they’re working on a fifth-generation technology.”
For Brady, Russia’s push on the development front signals that the U.S. cannot settle for the status quo.
“The key is, we must continue to do fifth-generation and sixth-generation research and put money against it because other people clearly are,” Brady said.
North added that the Pentagon must ensure fourth-generation jets such as the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are continually upgraded.
“If we’re not going to buy more, what we’ve got to have is the very best that our sons and daughters go out to fight with,” he said.
In tandem with the T-50 project, Russia is developing a long-range bomber.
“We won’t limit ourselves to just one new model,” Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said March 1. 'We must start work on a prospective long-range aircraft, our new strategic bomber.'”
[Note: Thank you to Sudhir007 for the newslink.]
Look closely, do you see those gigantic fan blades in the engine? Enemy radar can see them too. So, just exactly how is the Russian T-50 stealthy?
Russian T-50 wheel-bay doors are not serrated/saw-toothed
I'm disappointed at the lack of serrated wheel-bay doors on the Russian T-50. Let's compare the wheel-bay doors for China's J-20 and Russian T-50.
J-20's serrated wheel-bay door
Once again, we will use the eyeball-test. Do you see serrated edges on the Russian T-50 wheel bay door?
Last edited by Martian2; 09-08-2011 at 06:38 AM.
And i don't think the current Russian engine is good enough to power J-20.
Heck, am willing to bet you have never heard of bi-static radar until I came along.
From my July 12, 2011 post:
J-20 can supercruise and is more stealthy than F-35
1. In a much earlier post, I quoted a J-20 Chinese test pilot who confirmed the J-20 can supercruise. F-35 cannot.
2. J-20 has a clean design like the F-22. I have already mentioned the two flaws in the J-20 design that makes it currently inferior to the F-22 (e.g. "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles). However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."
3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."
In conclusion, aside from avionics, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the F-35 in both supercruise ability and stealth across all "nine radio-frequency bands."
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble. The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions. The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies. Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production. Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters."
F-35 with "‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."
J-20 Mighty Dragon has a smooth and flat underside.
The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?
"This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.
Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi).
Engineers and Scientists who work in ‘stealth’ (AKA ‘Low Observable’) designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: ‘Stealth’ is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).
The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. The J-20 has observed the ‘Shaping, Shaping, Shaping’ imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. The X-35 mostly observed the ‘Shaping, Shaping, Shaping’ rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, ‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to ‘Low Observability’.
While discussing ‘rear-ends’, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles. However, the difference is much like the proverbial ‘Ham Omelette’: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20."
[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the J-20 underside picture and Stereospace for the F-35 underside picture.]
Last edited by Martian2; 09-08-2011 at 12:35 PM.
Your extreme anti-Chinese views have blinded you to obvious Russian T-50 defects like the metal-framed canopy, exposed rivets, protruding IRST probe, exposed engine blades, non-RAM covered engine nacelles, non-continuous curvature upper fuselage, and completely unstealthy Su-30-like underside. You're blind as a bat. Give me a break.
This is a stealth superfighter:
J-20 Mighty Dragon sheer intimidation
J-20 Mighty Dragon sheer intimidation
This is not a stealth fighter and it is a mere pretender:
Russian T-50. Is it even stealthy? Look at those giant engine fan blades.
Russian T-50 underside is a messy design. Vents, gaps, stuff jutting out, etc. This is not stealthy.
Last edited by Martian2; 09-08-2011 at 01:36 PM.
physical optics theory may be an inaccurate approximation for certain wavelengths, but that does not make its final answer necessarily wrong. and if the physical optics theory answer is indeed, wrong and indeed wrong by orders of magnitude, if the "correct" value of reflected power is still low, the end result might not even matter as the reflected beams could still be lower than the detection threshhold.
I'm not saying youre wrong, i'm just saying that we need some hardcore computational EM data down to say for sure whether the J-20 is good, or not. as for now, the thing that has results is the physical optics model. if you could make a Mathematica program for that, i'd more than appreciate it =)
According to one Russian website, China will be one of the recipients on the FGFA under 'certain circumstances'.
At least 1000 PAK FA fighters will be manufactured until 2050 - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM
Russians develop fifth-generation PAK FA stealth multi-role fighter « Wintery Knight
These are just speculations, and will remain that way until the Chinese Government is clear on the matter. It is a simple yes or no.
The Russians have decades of experience in the aviation sector compared to China. The latter still has much to learn from the former.
And if you are so self-sufficient, why go for Russian engines for the FC-20s and JF-17s?
The current prototype of the PAK FA is not the final version. It is speculated that the final product would look something like this:
The PAK FA's general air-frame is fine, the only thing that does need work are the engines, which is by far the most difficult aspect of the aircraft.
Is the J-20 better? Hard to say at this point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)