Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[gambit]

Here's why I say the upper bound RCS is clean EF-2000.

1. Both the J-20 and the EF-2000 share many design traits. Of the ones that differ, they differ only as to reduce the RCS of that particular design trait, while seeming to not affect other parts.

2. Both the J-20 and the EF-2000 have 2 engines and a delta canard configuration.

3. The EF-2000 has its intakes in a row at the bottom of the fuselage. The J-20 has side intakes. This is one major design difference. I cannot say one way or another that one would result in a larger RCS or whether the RCS difference is significant. However, I don't think you can either. The easiest way to say it is, they're going to be the same.

4. There is another major design difference: the J-20 has internal weapons bays, so its RCS will not change with or without weapons. Can't be said of EF-2000.

5. And the final part is, it at least has RAM paint on a frame that's similar enough to the EF-2000 to have it as a model.

The Eurofighter was not designed with RCS control as high priority, especially with its single vertical stab. Credit to the Chinese to recognize that in order to reduce RCS, twin canted vertical stabs must be installed. Still, if the Eurofighter is the standard against which you or anyone else perceived to be a legitimate standard held, then either the F-22 has nothing to worry about or the lot of you take my advice and simply wait until more J-20 data is available.

 

[帅的一匹]

?20?? ????ã_?_?
J-20 Year 2012 first flight video

 

[marshall]

SLBMs are not the way to solve China's deterrent problems because it is not realistic, cheaper, survivable and simple. It is unrealistic, expensive, unsurvivable and complicated because the subs can't even leave the East China Sea without being tracked by the USN, and the maximum range of JL-2 is 8000 km, which cannot reach the US mainland.

I was speaking relatively to building a couple thousand miles of tunnels big enough to house mobile ICBM TELs. Besides, China's 094 subs are not as easy to track as you're making it out, but yes they're not stealthy enough. No matter the "actual" extent of China's tunnels, the US has enough ICBMs to saturate China and entomb the majority of these supposed underground nukes. Compared to the cost and reliability of building these tunnels, it would make much more sense to simply build a hell of alot more mobile ICBM TELs and have them hidden all over China, especially in the northeast. Once China's nuke sub tech reaches a more competitive technological state, then China could move the bulk of its 2nd strike deterrence there.

A DF-31 road (or tunnel) mobile launcher can.

CCTV broadcasts talked about the tunnels a long time ago. Here's some photos from TV

http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_3942806_1.html

I'm just going to leave it at this. This is obviously top secret and no one knows where the tunnels actually are, their true extent, or whatever, just as no one knows how many nuclear warheads there are. All I know is, the US estimates of China's arsenal haven't changed for 20 years, so I'm going to take whatever the US government says with a supertanker full of salt.

Like I said earlier, I dispute the extent of these tunnels, NOT their existence. Their construction was begun in the 1950s but for tunnels designed to be large enough and deep enough to sustain possible nuclear strikes, these tunnels would need to be built within granite and many hundreds if not over 1000 feet underground. Those sorts of tunnels did not begin construction until the 1990s as stated by various sources. Building thousands of miles of these sorts or tunnels to this level of quality is impossible in the short amount of time claimed. We should gauge these reports with some judgment, especially when they are used by American neocons as justification to demonize China and excuses for yet more military funding.

 

[ptldM3]

I'm just going to say this. The J-20 has been flight tested 62 times this year. That means this is a serious project. The PAK-FA has been flight tested 3 times I think. I'm not saying that the PAK-FA is bad, just that the priority seems to be lower.

Thats incorrect.

 

[marshall]

When you are dealing with something that you don't have any idea, then it would be better for you to stay out of it...

...If you have nothing else positive to contribute, then this thread is not welcome for you.

Maybe that's your opinion because you are the source of alot of the examples of BS that I mentioned. LOL There is a difference between speculation and analysis and somebody like you claiming something as fact from so-called insider sources as you often do. I have yet to see official proof of the WS-10G turbofan installed on the J-20 prototype as you said months ago was a done deal. You also once claimed that a CAC source said the WS-15 might be installed on the J-20 next year, which is now THIS year. Let's see if that happens shall we? I also have yet to see the J-16 1st flight that you also claimed was a done deal by a CAC insider and would happen during that weekend. That's something you repeated again on a different occasion yet again, also BS yet again. I have no problem with speculation, what I don't like is outright BS and made up "facts" that are wishful thinking or perhaps purposeful deception. Aren't you also the guy who was talking about the T99KM like a year ago? Still no proof, nothing but Photoshops and yet this fantasy has made it into Wikipedia that some American right-wing think tanks use as their insider sources. LOL

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Maybe that's your opinion because you are the source of alot of the examples of BS that I mentioned. LOL There is a difference between speculation and analysis and somebody like you claiming something as fact from so-called insider sources as you often do. I have yet to see official proof of the WS-10G turbofan installed on the J-20 prototype as you said months ago was a done deal. You also once claimed that a CAC source said the WS-15 might be installed on the J-20 next year, which is now THIS year. Let's see if that happens shall we? I also have yet to see the J-16 1st flight that you also claimed was a done deal by a CAC insider and would happen during that weekend. That's something you repeated again on a different occasion yet again, also BS yet again. I have no problem with speculation, what I don't like is outright BS and made up "facts" that are wishful thinking or perhaps purposeful deception. Aren't you also the guy who was talking about the T99KM like a year ago? Still no proof, nothing but Photoshops and yet this fantasy has made it into Wikipedia that some American right-wing think tanks use as their insider sources. LOL

If you don't like it, then just don't take it. No one here is forcing you.

Honestly, i am only exchanging our insider information with the specific Chinese member here like Houshanghai.

We play with the rule and we don't impose our idea on other people here.

Furthermore, we never derailed a sticky thread.

For example, i personally don't believe that India has reached the ICBM technology level yet, but have you seen that i used to derail the topic about the Indian ICBM?

Same for you, now it is the time to leave this thread if you have nothing else to contribute, and don't just go down to the level of Gambit and other trolls here.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The Eurofighter was not designed with RCS control as high priority, especially with its single vertical stab. Credit to the Chinese to recognize that in order to reduce RCS, twin canted vertical stabs must be installed. Still, if the Eurofighter is the standard against which you or anyone else perceived to be a legitimate standard held, then either the F-22 has nothing to worry about or the lot of you take my advice and simply wait until more J-20 data is available.

I am saying that the Eurofighter RCS is an upper bound. It has a clean RCS of 1m2, and J-20 has internal weapons bays, so at the very most, it is an Eurofighter. It is likely to be better due to a few "superior" design features, but no worse. Do you agree in principle to this sort of assessment?

 

[amalakas]

Take care of your own stuff man, otherwise your lovely Greece will bankrupt without borrowing money from China,that's whole loads of BS about what you say. Archimedes will be shamed by what you'd said just now.Every one in theis forum who is racist.

---------- Post added at 08:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 AM ----------

you're the one

because my country goes bankrupt , it means my mind has stopped working ? what kind of logic is this? and you are telling me i should be ashamed? I say probably not...

 

[amalakas]

Even for the F-22, if the seeking radar is looking straight up his @$$, nothing than active cancellation can hide the engines.

Sources that I trust, told me that the APG-68 radar (V)9 cannot track the rear end of the F-22 at about 15 miles ...

 

[amalakas]

I am saying that the Eurofighter RCS is an upper bound. It has a clean RCS of 1m2, and J-20 has internal weapons bays, so at the very most, it is an Eurofighter. It is likely to be better due to a few "superior" design features, but no worse. Do you agree in principle to this sort of assessment?

This is a rough approach. EF2000's have been picked up and tracked and targeted in common NATO exercises, by planes, AWACS, and ground stations.
During such missions, the planes usually fly clean with instrumentation pods on and sometimes with training missiles, which the EF2000 carries in conformal slots in its belly.
The EF2000 is only marginally better than an F-16, and by marginally i mean it makes no real difference to the seeking radar.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Once again you are playing the two card. You are telling everyone here that because the J-20 has RAM it's humps or bumps (as you like to say) do not pose a problem; however, with regards to the F-35 or pak-fa you claim that both aircraft are 'unstealthy' because of their bumps and humps. There are many things wrong with your assertions but the two that really stand out is that you claim size as a measurment of 'stealth'--now ironically the J-20's bumps and humps are very large and there are numerious (4 wing pods, DSI, buldges under the canards and curved fuselage aft of the aircraft before the nozzles).

Moreover, your DSI argumant has little merit. Just because you say the DSI is stealth does not make it so. No matter how smooth you claim it to be, no matter how stealthy you claim it to be it is still a convex structure. It's no suprise that a convex structure has the strongest returnes from its center mass. The J-20's DSI is a convex structure therefor it has a point of center mass.

 

[amalakas]

The only noticeable gaps on the T-50, that vary significantly with say the F22 are the gaps between the weapon bay doors.
These are of some concern, perhaps there is a reason or perhaps these are mock doors.

 

[DrSomnath999]

DrSomanth999 found many "irregularities" in the J-20 some of which are also present in the F-22.

It is absolutely insane or stupid to think that the much larger gap between fuselage and intakes on the F-22 has zero contribution to RCS while the gap between canards and fuselage on the J-20 puts it above clutter rejection threshold without actual tests, which no one has.

well 1st of all apart from gaps u can also see many other things i had also pointed out plz kindly see it before saying me insane

Note the gap between fuselage and intakes.

Fortunately it's American. American planes, no matter their flaws, are always faster, stealthier, and far superior to the planes of others. Doesn't need technical explanation. Team USA **** yeah.

well stealth doesnt mean the jet is completely invisible the same rule applies for all country's 5th gen jet including USA .

J-20 has undergone 62 flight tests in the past year. PAK-FA underwent 3.

now how does it related to stealth(LOL).& on the top of it u r accusing me of insanity & stupidy ,that so fair & unbiased of u

 

[marshall]

I am saying that the Eurofighter RCS is an upper bound. It has a clean RCS of 1m2, and J-20 has internal weapons bays, so at the very most, it is an Eurofighter. It is likely to be better due to a few "superior" design features, but no worse. Do you agree in principle to this sort of assessment?

This is a rough approach. EF2000's have been picked up and tracked and targeted in common NATO exercises, by planes, AWACS, and ground stations.
During such missions, the planes usually fly clean with instrumentation pods on and sometimes with training missiles, which the EF2000 carries in conformal slots in its belly.
The EF2000 is only marginally better than an F-16, and by marginally i mean it makes no real difference to the seeking radar.

You stated that the Eurofighter with it's 1m2 RCS is easily tracked but that's not the question he asked. The question was if the J-20's design features of internal weapons bay, RAM coating, etc, etc, would in principle indicate that it would at the minimum have equal or better stealth performance to the Eurofighter when illuminated by an enemy radar.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Use KJ-2000 AWACS AESA radar to search for F-22s.

KJ-2000 AWACS (i.e. Airborne Warning and Control System)

----------

well mate apart from wasting time on doing worthless mathematical calculation ,instead u read the
advantage of passive detection capabilty of f22 raptor as it is the key of f22 survival in modern
conflict.
yes AWACS can be used for detection of F22 but the problem is by the time AWACS detected f22.
F22 would have earlier detected it thorugh it's passive detection capabilty & launched its AIM120d
BVraam missile towrads it .