And China also got a lot of help in its aerospace industry. The point I was making is that you can't take an argument about what a country couldn't do before to make a claim about what it can't do now. Skepticism is only useful when it's not categorical.
J-20... The New Generation Fighter II
- Thread starter Asymptote
- Start date
- Status
Well in the end, it's not unreasonable to think that because this is China's first attempt at a stealth plane, there's probably a lot of flaws. But I think that whatever flaws there are, they probably aren't readily apparent to the average/amateur PLA watcher like myself. I mean, for commonly acknowledged things like edge alignment and whatnot, the J-20 checks out fine to my untrained eyes. But I'm no super computer, so who knows what else might actually be wrong with it, lol.
Like Popeye said, just because someone doesn't think the J-20 is the best thing since sliced bread doesn't mean they're trolling.
Like Popeye said, just because someone doesn't think the J-20 is the best thing since sliced bread doesn't mean they're trolling.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
And no one really knows so the ones that say it's inferior or the ones that don't both don't know and any charges can be said of the other. So the ones whining about Chinese nationalism are no better.
And that's the point of testing, to iron out those flaws. Still, this thing has been in the design process for at least a decade now, and with the requirements they seem to be asserting they must at least think that whatever their end goal it's achievable.
MwRYum
Major
Not so much as "flaw" but realistic compromises I'd say. With advanced computer simulations, CAD and wind tunnel you can pretty much iron out most things before you build one for real, but ultimately the end product would depend on the availability and stability of its components, fabrication technology and the like, as well as how much tradeoff in its performance aspects the PLAAF would tolerate...hell we don't even know what kind of role the PLAAF earmark this one for in the first place! It's bad if all we can go with just low-res pics and wild guess from non-professionals.
The final product of Project 817 / "J-20" can still go many ways.
cn_habs
Junior Member
Look at the raw edges and finish on the PAK-50. It's basically a modified stealthy Su-27 with RAM coating. I doubt they had the necessary resources to make it as advanced as the J-20.
I don't think most people here are biaised enough to say that J-20 is as good as the F-22. It's really a no-brainer here.
I don't think most people here are biaised enough to say that J-20 is as good as the F-22. It's really a no-brainer here.
supercat
Major
The problem with Asymptote's argument is that it is too simplistic. I doubt you can tell which one is more stealthy by just eyeballing it, except for the nozzles. If this is the case, I would say F-22 negates all its advantages in geometry by having such huge vertical tails. The Americans have run their numbers through supercomputers, so have the Chinese.
U.S. and China are the only countries which successfully tested mid-course interceptions, and China did it only in last year. This demonstrates two points: new is not necessary inferior, and Chinese ASBM is not that inconceivable considering Chinese can employ similar technologies from their experience with mid-course interception.
U.S. and China are the only countries which successfully tested mid-course interceptions, and China did it only in last year. This demonstrates two points: new is not necessary inferior, and Chinese ASBM is not that inconceivable considering Chinese can employ similar technologies from their experience with mid-course interception.
SDF is turning into just another fanboy forum
loud on off topic talk, but close to zip on knowledge
airsuperiority
Captain
He did.
".......Even a cursory examination of the available photographs reveals major surface disruptions that would appear very bright to a modern high frequency radar. Access panels, cavities, and vents are visible which could not be eliminated or controlled without significant design changes."
"The sizing of some of these features matters. With even an imprecise measure of the size of some of these features it is clear that they were intended to mask the aircraft from lower frequency radars, and from a narrow range of aspect angles."
What he meant isn't just about how smooth it is, but the sizing of these features. It has to do with radar frequency irradiation of these features.
There are also many other major disruption on surface even from frontal angle that we can see from the comparison shot below.
A large frontal reflecting surface at the inlet, the bump along the edge of canard gap,
change of alignment angle along the gap, round LERX (Leading edge root extensions), gaps on the leading edge slats, and uneven surface along the body (see the alignment line).
I would assume those little spikes (I counted 5) that sticks out around the nose will be removed from the production line model. If not, those are major disruption too.
You didn't bring any evidence to your argument about J-20. So, personal bashing aside, you brought nothing to the table besides trying to slander me.
AsBM is not publicly acknowledged, AsBM is not tested, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IT ACTUALLY EXISTED. It should be treated as myth until proven otherwise.
Seriously, bring something to the table for discussion. Its infantile to just shout and slander. Also, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am bashing China.
Burden of proof lies on you, not me, on why J-20 is just for looks. Also are you stating the the ASBM was completely fabricated? Beijing is willing to declare on something that is of 0 existence? AND the DOD actually buying this story and worrying? Check your brain and your logic first on what you've said. I also didn't accuse of bashing did I? I just said you're in denial. Anyways vomit whatever you want; I'm going to ignore your posts from now on since it's detrimental to any constructive mindsets. Your egocentricisms are also spilling through the board.
- Status