J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
Side question as a layperson regarding RCS measurement, would physically modelling the j-20 via 3d printing, then measuring the radar return on the model be significantly better than software simulation? I'd imagine you can make the physical model as detailed as possible using photographic modelling, this seems doable even from a OSINT pov?

However you will be limited by surface resolution during manufacture and whether a scaled model directly translates to the real deal. I'm not too familiar with radars but I know that this is commonly done for aero research.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
tankphobia said:
Side question as a layperson regarding RCS measurement, would physically modelling the j-20 via 3d printing, then measuring the radar return on the model be significantly better than software simulation? I'd imagine you can make the physical model as detailed as possible using photographic modelling, this seems doable even from a OSINT pov?

However you will be limited by surface resolution during manufacture and whether a scaled model directly translates to the real deal. I'm not too familiar with radars but I know that this is commonly done for aero research.
Click to expand...
Material composition matters. So do fine shapes and surface details, so the finish of the model will also matter. You can probably get some kind of ballpark figure if you build the physical model precisely enough but it’s not as simple as just printing something.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
tankphobia said:
Side question as a layperson regarding RCS measurement, would physically modelling the j-20 via 3d printing, then measuring the radar return on the model be significantly better than software simulation? I'd imagine you can make the physical model as detailed as possible using photographic modelling, this seems doable even from a OSINT pov?

However you will be limited by surface resolution during manufacture and whether a scaled model directly translates to the real deal. I'm not too familiar with radars but I know that this is commonly done for aero research.
Click to expand...
materials and more importantly, surface roughness, won't be matched though.
 
tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
latenlazy said:
Material composition matters. So do fine shapes and surface details, so the finish of the model will also matter. You can probably get some kind of ballpark figure if you build the physical model precisely enough but it’s not as simple as just printing something.
Click to expand...
Definitely, I guess the old engineering adage still apply here. Nothing beats just building the dang thing and measure it yourself.

In a quest to get ever more accurate approximation eventually you'll just have to build a full scaled fighter jet, nice to know that physically modelling is still viable, with the same kind of limitations that software would have (accurate model, material).
 
BoraTas

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
Source? What source do you need for the claim that more powerful engine -> more electrical power? The source is any high school physics textbook.
Click to expand...
Jet engines generate so much power that the constraint is almost always the generator size rather than the engine power. F-16 has a 60 kVA generator which equals ~80 hp. Even if we say the J-20 will need 20x more power it is still just 1200 hp which is a small amount of power for 2 modern jet engines. The WS-15 is likely about kinematics, specifically about supercruising above M1.5 efficiently. Thrust is important for sustained turn rate, climb, and acceleration. It will minimize enemy AAM and SAM effective range. Efficient supersonic travel may prove very useful for anti-ship missions too.
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
Jet engines generate so much power that the constraint is almost always the generator size rather than the engine power. F-16 has a 60 kVA generator which equals ~80 hp. Even if we say the J-20 will need 20x more power it is still just 1200 hp which is a small amount of power for 2 modern jet engines. The WS-15 is likely about kinematics, specifically about supercruising above M1.5 efficiently. Thrust is important for sustained turn rate, climb, and acceleration. It will minimize enemy AAM and SAM effective range. Efficient supersonic travel may prove very useful for anti-ship missions too.
Click to expand...
Is there even any indication J-20 can work in anti ship role?

I always thought that was just some very fanciful theories early in development that believed its main mission would be to fly out to shoot at carrier groups.

But afaik the J-20 can't carry that many nor very good anti ship missiles. Its just optimised for A2A and not much else.
 
BoraTas

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Biscuits said:
Is there even any indication J-20 can work in anti ship role?

I always thought that was just some very fanciful theories early in development that believed its main mission would be to fly out to shoot at carrier groups.

But afaik the J-20 can't carry that many nor very good anti ship missiles. Its just optimised for A2A and not much else.
Click to expand...
Its ISR capabilities should be very useful. It has a huge radar, long range, and a great C2 suite including SATCOM. It may be the most survivable ISR asset China has today. Y-8/Y-9 derived things and drones are not survivable and can't survey massive areas fastly.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Biscuits said:
Is there even any indication J-20 can work in anti ship role?

I always thought that was just some very fanciful theories early in development that believed its main mission would be to fly out to shoot at carrier groups.

But afaik the J-20 can't carry that many nor very good anti ship missiles. Its just optimised for A2A and not much else.
Click to expand...
BoraTas said:
Its ISR capabilities should be very useful. It has a huge radar, long range, and a great C2 suite including SATCOM. It may be the most survivable ISR asset China has today. Y-8/Y-9 derived things and drones are not survivable and can't survey massive areas fastly.
Click to expand...

Besides, if the J-20 can carry stealthy standoff missiles like the YJ-98(N) without giving away too much of its stealth properties, then yes, the J-20s can work in anti-ship roles, technically speaking. However, doing so would be riskier than carrying those missiles inside its weapons bay (which could be impossible due to size limitations).

One F-35 can carry 2 to 4 LRASMs underneath its wings (since LRASM is too big to be fitted inside the weapons bay on the F-35), so I don't think why the J-20 (and even the J-35) wouldn't be able to carry the same numbers of YJ-98(N).

22-08928-ADSW-ASSM-LRASM-F-35-AFA-Column-Wrap-V2-header.jpg
LRASM-header.jpg.pc-adaptive.full.medium.jpeg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top