J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Air Force Brat]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Supposed internal documentation revealed that ground control radar lost track of the J-20 multiple times during the Military Parade (August 1st?) in 2018. Use of Luneberg lens is mandated by the top commander of the military region and technicians are forbidden from removing it without higher up mandate. J-10C is also tricky to track but since it accompanies an H-6 refueler, it is easy to pinpoint its position.

Radar technicians suggested using long-wavelength radars and relative aerial distance between the J-20 formation and other fighter formations to facilitate tracking during the parade.

Interesting if true, I'm fairly certain that the J-20 is far more L/O than given credit for by some sources, and far more L/O than the lovely Su-57, shaping is very important to the ultimate L/O signature, to say otherwise is simply to illustrate your ignorance..

 

[Hyperwarp]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Supposed internal documentation revealed that ground control radar lost track of the J-20 multiple times during the Military Parade (August 1st?) in 2018. Use of Luneberg lens is mandated by the top commander of the military region and technicians are forbidden from removing it without higher up mandate. J-10C is also tricky to track but since it accompanies an H-6 refueler, it is easy to pinpoint its position.

Radar technicians suggested using long-wavelength radars and relative aerial distance between the J-20 formation and other fighter formations to facilitate tracking during the parade.

Not surprising regarding the J-20, but very interesting regarding the J-10C. J-10C was not in a clean configuration. 3x drop tanks and 4x AAM.

 

[taxiya]

In the third and fifth images of 232, please notice the base of the right "ruddervator" is very well defined, notice also that the bottom of the ruddervator does not "fair up" against the bottom of the base, theres a reason for this as there is a quite large gap near the pivot on the J-20, anybody have any ideas why?

The J-20 "ruddervator" serves as both yaw and pitch control, and flairs together for airbraking, like the canards it is a very healthy piece with very long throw...

I'll state it once again, the J-20 is an amazing aircraft with what is likely one of the most complex FCS systems ever installed on an aircraft, Dr. Song noted the complexity of getting all the surfaces to function well together, love seeing this vapor boiling off this girl...

you'd have to admit no matter what a naysayer you were that the flow is "energized"!

You mean the red circled feature? I think it is just due to mechanical design requirement.

• The red line is the base plane of the tilting device, it is perpendicular to the axis of actuator in orange.
• The blue lines are the bottom edges of the vertical stabilizer. The edges have angles to the red line.
• The vertical stabilizer is oval shaped. Its outer surface will get closer to the blue lines (tilting plane) when tilted. In other words, the centre of the vert and the outer edge of the vert are on different tilting planes.

Therefor the outer edge has to be shorter than centre, so the gap.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Not surprising regarding the J-20, but very interesting regarding the J-10C. J-10C was not in a clean configuration. 3x drop tanks and 4x AAM.

Yep, that line in particular causes one pause for thought?? the J-10C is NOT an L/O bird, at all, so it does perhaps reflect on the veracity of the statement about the J-20,,, but looking at the J-20 it is obviously very intentionally shaped to reduce radar signature....

the folks on here that wish to argue that the Su-57 is optimized for L/O don't know what the hell they are talking about, and you damn sure can see the difference in shaping.

The same with the F-117, its very, very different from the shaping of the Su-57 and for that matter the J-10, I have no idea why anyone would suggest the J-10C was difficult to pick up on radar, yes its small, but its not that small....

 

[antiterror13]

Yep, that line in particular causes one pause for thought?? the J-10C is NOT an L/O bird, at all, so it does perhaps reflect on the veracity of the statement about the J-20,,, but looking at the J-20 it is obviously very intentionally shaped to reduce radar signature....

the folks on here that wish to argue that the Su-57 is optimized for L/O don't know what the hell they are talking about, and you damn sure can see the difference in shaping.

The same with the F-117, its very, very different from the shaping of the Su-57 and for that matter the J-10, I have no idea why anyone would suggest the J-10C was difficult to pick up on radar, yes its small, but its not that small....

Perhaps Chinese radar are not that good?

 

[Air Force Brat]

Perhaps Chinese radar are not that good?

I wouldn't say that so much, I would more likely suspect someone was exaggerating??? I don't know, we all get a little giddy when we are talking about our latest "high zoot toys", ie my new Z-28 does 187 mph! does it really?? who knows, LOL

 

[taxiya]

Perhaps Chinese radar are not that good?

That is unlikely in this case. Here we are talking about air defence radars around Beijing. Or you were just kidding?

 

[antiterror13]

That is unlikely in this case. Here we are talking about air defence radars around Beijing. Or you were just kidding?

the latter

 

[Blitzo]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Supposed internal documentation revealed that ground control radar lost track of the J-20 multiple times during the Military Parade (August 1st?) in 2018. Use of Luneberg lens is mandated by the top commander of the military region and technicians are forbidden from removing it without higher up mandate. J-10C is also tricky to track but since it accompanies an H-6 refueler, it is easy to pinpoint its position.

Radar technicians suggested using long-wavelength radars and relative aerial distance between the J-20 formation and other fighter formations to facilitate tracking during the parade.

That really isn't a surprise if it was a ground control radar; i.e.: a radar from say a nearby airbase or base meant for simple tracking rather than a radar as part of an IADS.

If they're not even able to track a J-10C loaded with external stores and relying on an H-6 tanker then chances are the radar itself was a simple one. That makes sense, because it's not like they would've deployed an HQ-9 battery with its radar actively emitting over Zhurihe during the parade last year. The only radars that would've been active during the parade over the area likely would've been relatively simple ground tracking radars from local bases meant for simple air traffic management.

 

[taxiya]

I wouldn't say that so much, I would more likely suspect someone was exaggerating??? I don't know, we all get a little giddy when we are talking about our latest "high zoot toys", ie my new Z-28 does 187 mph! does it really?? who knows, LOL

Although I am confused as you are regarding J-10, exaggeration is however very unlikely IF that paper was part of a PLAF report to review the air-control of the military parade. Making false statement in such report is guaranteed to have the authors fired or demoted. The statement has to have radar readings to back it.

The original wording is

J-10C closely follows HY-6, can be readily detected and continuously tracked.

The texts gives the impression that J-10C was difficult to track by seemingly linked its tracking to the presence of HY-6. But it actually did not say there is any difficulties. So I think it was more of the netizens over interpretation of J-10C, rather than the report exaggerating.