J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Well all these birds are stealthy, but the only way to really know how stealthy is to check out the radar return, or the lack thereof. Lots of cheap talk, but you and I will likely never be in the "loop" to read anyones radar return or their Infra-red signature on any of these birds, so this discussion is largely "moot". CAC/PLAAF will buy as much L/O as they have tech and money to afford and need, no more, no less, IMHO none of these bird are alien fighters, theres only one of those and her cancelation has taken a lot of the heat off to get to the "cloaking" mode? We're all watchin our checkbook?
Let me apologize and say for the record that these tools are important and very necessary in the engineering of any aircraft designed to be stealthy, just that the proof is in the pudding, and stealth is more like voodoo majic than rocket science. There are a great many nuances and an airplane that was stealthy yesterday, needs to be maintained in order to remain stealthy, I realize I sometimes prolly sound a little stupid to you geeky dudes that love all this stuff, and since I really am not into all that wonky biz, but just kind of informed on certain airframes. Let me just say that I have had lots of people tell me, "how it really is", only to find out later that wasn't really "how it really wuz".
Last edited:
Yes, tools are important. About 15 years ago, there was all sorts of talk in Chinese circles that they have capability to design good weapon systems, but lacked the tooling skilled workforce to turn paper designs into reality. In these 15 years, a lot have changed in China. There may still be some critical area where manufacturing is lacking, but it's a who knows category and the same goes for much money China is spending on these projects. (or how much China is spending on the military anyways.) All I am saying is we don't know enough to make a judgement.
All this techniques are well known, they just need to add this function without compromising other functions. (One reason will not be used in military stealth applications soon, even though it is really is a cloaking technology rather than the "simple" RCS reduction techniques used to today.) Also even if the money is available, the service arm need to get the funding for it. Since there will always be people who argue all great power wars (or if 2nd Artillery has their way, all wars) in the future will be just a exchange of ballistic and cruise missiles and money is better spend in these missiles and missile defenses. (giant money sink-hole the world has ever seen)
All this techniques are well known, they just need to add this function without compromising other functions. (One reason will not be used in military stealth applications soon, even though it is really is a cloaking technology rather than the "simple" RCS reduction techniques used to today.) Also even if the money is available, the service arm need to get the funding for it. Since there will always be people who argue all great power wars (or if 2nd Artillery has their way, all wars) in the future will be just a exchange of ballistic and cruise missiles and money is better spend in these missiles and missile defenses. (giant money sink-hole the world has ever seen)
When the principles were established in the 1970's you could start thinking about how to design a stealthy aircraft just as when the principles of aircraft design were established around 1900. But the developent of computers and of computer programs for aircraft aerodynamics, structures, stability and control has made the design of aircraft in general much more certain, so the design of LO aspects of aircraft, that was magic around 1990, has now also become better estabished.
This meant design a number of simple shapes, put them in an anechoid chamber, radiate radio waves at them, measure the reflections in many directions and compare them with the reflections expected according to the theoretical model. Then you improve the model, test more complex shapes and continue to improve the model. I understand China began this development around 1990 so in twenty years a lot of work will have been done to remove the magic from LO design. Think also about the immense development in super computers in that period. The same development took place in other countries and anecdotes about that magic from years ago are not relevant anymore. You need to test your aircraft of course, just as you need flight testing for every new aircraft, but there is no reason think the shape of J-20 is in any way inferiour to that of F-22. The reverse is more likely. I let others comment on the development of the radar absorbing materials.
This meant design a number of simple shapes, put them in an anechoid chamber, radiate radio waves at them, measure the reflections in many directions and compare them with the reflections expected according to the theoretical model. Then you improve the model, test more complex shapes and continue to improve the model. I understand China began this development around 1990 so in twenty years a lot of work will have been done to remove the magic from LO design. Think also about the immense development in super computers in that period. The same development took place in other countries and anecdotes about that magic from years ago are not relevant anymore. You need to test your aircraft of course, just as you need flight testing for every new aircraft, but there is no reason think the shape of J-20 is in any way inferiour to that of F-22. The reverse is more likely. I let others comment on the development of the radar absorbing materials.
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
It could just be the lighting but this aircraft seems to have a gray radome. If true, this would make the aircraft 2003.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The radome does indeed look a shade lighter than the rest of the aircraft. However, as you said, whether that is because the radome is grey, or because of lighting, it is hard to tell just yet.
Quickie
Colonel
Looks like the radome no longer has the pitot tube. It seems more and more like the 2003?
Last edited:
- Status