J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Asymptote said:

look = performance right?

So these are all fully working combatant then?

There is the "look", and there is the "substance".
Unfortunately, China is the former for far too long. Back in Boxer Rebellion those "boxers" believe they can stop BULLETS and CANON with their body. LMAO.

Let's put it this way, for far too long, China's science is more mystical then grounded in reality and science (I am talking about pre-1900). Chinese Kungfu? Its more about the "form" than about actual application.

Anyway. Back to J-20.
So, you are saying F-22 is untested in combat so its not believable it has any combat effectiveness?!
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but America is the first to operate stealth fighter and bomber for DECADES. It has more than proven itself in every type of scenario, and F-22 is NOT the first stealth aircraft design by America.

Click to expand...

Asymptote said:

On the other hand, J-20 is the FIRST stealth aircraft design by China. It is the third combat aircraft completely design by China right?? (Let's not count the Soviet clones) So, pardon my skepticism, but China practically has no indigenous aircraft design experience compare to America.

Click to expand...

Asymptote said:

Well, I certainly can't say what stealth material J-20 has, but like I say before, having favorable view without grounded in realism is dangerous. Believing J-20 is as good as F-22, you are only deluding yourself like those Boxers, only to be utterly obliterated by a real canon.

Click to expand...

latenlazy said:

This is really for a different thread, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

tanlixiang28776 said:

Pretty much sums up what everyone has been saying from the start about this guy.

Click to expand...

latenlazy said:

Was specifically referring to the martial arts comment.

If possible I would like to get back to substantive arguments and just ignore the personal attacks now.

Click to expand...

latenlazy said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The examples in his writing was a loose screw on the Have Blue. If he were talking about smoothed out surface structures on the plane though he's really picking his cherries. The fact that there are structural bumps and uneven surfaces that are smoothed out along the is a normal characteristic we see in all stealth fighters (yes, that F-22 has these "defects" as well, including a less than perfect alignment line). The point is that the shape and size of these surface features, as well as its material composition and coating, are designed to limit radar return, and it's the overall effect of the airframe that counts and not its individual parts. Quellish's post argued that the J-20 had too many small protruding surface features that made it detectable with higher band radars, but it really doesn't have that many more surface features than the F-22 does, and like the F-22 those features are shaped.

In the J-20s case we don't know if the frontal reflectors along the inlet are heavily treated with Ram like the F-22s inlet, or if they're made with dielectric materials, or if they fact generate the same or lesser radar return because they block radar from entering the inlet (Also note that these features also exist in the F-35). We don't know if those LERXes are shaped in a way that still works with the shape of the airplane (it's the net outcome and not the parts after all), if they're made from radar transparent material, or if they're treated with RAM. We don't even know if or how many design revisions the J-20 will go through. However, in so far you haven't indicated anything that hurts radar return on the J-20 that doesn't exist on the F-22 in some way or form.

Click to expand...

Asymptote said:

The F-22's leading edge slat gaps are almost imperceptible, where as J-20's are visible even from long camera shot. And if you look closely, F-22 has only two leading edge slate gaps, while J-20 has six. One can assume such gap is crucial in stealth's performance and reason why USAF minimize such gap in its design and choose to extend the leading edge slates all the way down to wing tips.

And the LERX behind J-20's canard are very large and visible, adding to the problem. There is no round LERX in F-22, F-35, or PAK FA. It certainly is a glaring feature out of the bunch.

The boom (is that a boom?) between the engines at the rear of the F-22 is recessed, it is clear from the shape of the indentation, its masked by the aircraft's body so its not visible from the front.

I am not sure about the bumps behind F-22's side weapon bays.

Overall, F-22 has more unified and carefully aligned edges, where as J-20's alignment seems to only apply to the main wings and canard. The inlets and LERX is of different angles, so does practially every other edge from the back.
The large surface in front of the inlet is also glaringly obvious too.

Click to expand...

i.e. said:

Great.
you can solve ufimtsev's equations by eyeballs. no need for those costly computers!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

i.e. said:

Great.
you can solve ufimtsev's equations by eyeballs. no need for those costly computers!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

tanlixiang28776 said:

The problem is that he assumes that the design of the F 22 is the epitome of stealth and that any other design must follow the exact same design philosophy to achieve the same level of RCS.

That assumption is fundamentally wrong as the the F 22 is a conventional aircraft design and the J 20 a delta canard. They use very fundamentally different design philosophies from the very start.

What might work for conventional planes like the F 22 and T 50 would not necessarily work for the J 20. There is not only one solution to the problem.

Click to expand...