J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)

[Quickie]

Deleted double post.

 

[Quickie]

Actually, this time the 2 nozzles are contracted to about the same outlet diameter. The differences in appearance have more to do with differences with petal lengths, and also the widths of the bands/rings before them. (As I've tried to explain the same previously.)

For the same reason, the new nozzle has a slightly bigger diameter than the older nozzle when both are fully expanded.

Come on, more pictures please to clear up all the arguments!

 

[tphuang]

Regarding the corner reflector and the general rule of VLO aircraft of avoiding 90 degree joints, doesn't that spell trouble for the Russian PAK FA? Even if the current metallic nacelles of that jet get covered by RAM, it still has some perpendicular joints that seem to require some substantial redesign to get rid of.

The patent of PAK-FA says that it's designed to achieve RCS of around 0.5 m^2. I'm not sure which angles it was referring to, but I would imagine it's around that ball park all the way around. And the return from aft section looks to be even more.

 

[RadDisconnect]

The T-50 has with-out a doubt compromised some aspects of stealth, and pursued "supermaneuverability" and speed, it is a very slick airplane, but not a "very stealthy airplane" IMHO.

Maneuverability, sure. Speed? Well the PAK FA's max speed is Mach 2.35, which frankly isn't significant at all compared to the F-22's Mach 2.25+.

 

[Solaris]

The patent of PAK-FA says that it's designed to achieve RCS of around 0.5 m^2. I'm not sure which angles it was referring to, but I would imagine it's around that ball park all the way around. And the return from aft section looks to be even more.

Wow, I had no idea this was the case. A commonly quoted frontal RCS for the F-22 is 0.0001 m^2, which means the "0.5 m^2" is referring to some angle other than frontal or the PAK-FA is not a truly stealth-optimized fighter. Perhaps the PAK-FA does not have an S-intake like everybody is saying and the turbine blades are viewable from the front. Or something else is going on.

 

[plawolf]

I wonder if they missed a decimal point. Even the Typhoon is often quoted to have an RCS or 0.05-0.1m^2.

For the PAKFA - a fifth gen contender, to have an RCS 5-10 times as high is really really poor if true.

Even at 0.05m^2, that RCS figure is unacceptable for a 5th IMO.

 

[Lezt]

I wonder if they missed a decimal point. Even the Typhoon is often quoted to have an RCS or 0.05-0.1m^2.

For the PAKFA - a fifth gen contender, to have an RCS 5-10 times as high is really really poor if true.

Even at 0.05m^2, that RCS figure is unacceptable for a 5th IMO.

Do anyone know what are the wavelengths for those figures? I would imagine that a VHF radar will yield very different results than a Xband radar.

 

[latenlazy]

I wonder if they missed a decimal point. Even the Typhoon is often quoted to have an RCS or 0.05-0.1m^2.

For the PAKFA - a fifth gen contender, to have an RCS 5-10 times as high is really really poor if true.

Even at 0.05m^2, that RCS figure is unacceptable for a 5th IMO.

I believe comparatively the same source started the Raptor had a figure of .1 m^2. Take that info as you will.

 

[Pmichael]

I wonder if they missed a decimal point. Even the Typhoon is often quoted to have an RCS or 0.05-0.1m^2.

For the PAKFA - a fifth gen contender, to have an RCS 5-10 times as high is really really poor if true.

Even at 0.05m^2, that RCS figure is unacceptable for a 5th IMO.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The patent (and also the lead engineer) talks about average RCS of the aircraft while it's common to use the theoretical best frontal RCS in western sources.

 

[tphuang]

I wonder if they missed a decimal point. Even the Typhoon is often quoted to have an RCS or 0.05-0.1m^2.

For the PAKFA - a fifth gen contender, to have an RCS 5-10 times as high is really really poor if true.

Even at 0.05m^2, that RCS figure is unacceptable for a 5th IMO.

I think the typhoon number is quite off unless they are talking about the most optimal direction with radar turned off. It looks less stealthy than Rafale, which looks less stealthy than PAK-Fa with its internal weapon bay and a lot of work to reduce signature from front profile.

Here is the article I'm referring to.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I was off. It was actually saying 0.1 to 1 m^2 on average.