J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.

i.e.

Senior Member
This is the type of unsubstantiated B.S. I was talking about. No one could prove them wrong either. Since they've got the "credentials" they can analysis which ever way they want to.

Lock-mart have almost the entire western world's 5th gen fighter market locked up in F-35 and prob Japan and SK will sign on too.

what they gonna do? go for F-22? Ha.

...

I think China should think seriously to accel and export J-10C or whatever it is called to some neutral countries at rock bottom prices. just to spit LM.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
APA does have political motives of course, but I think they also aren't amateurs to "analyzing" aircraft. Personally I rank them higher than say, strategypage and most western media sites in general, maybe equal to aviation week and flight global.

Ideally you shouldn't have any. I think Sweetman does a pretty good job at that.
 

kyanges

Junior Member
Let's just get it open on the table shall we:

I think there are some people don't like non subserviant nation made up of non-white people being independent powers.

and that shows in their "analysis".

?

He was saying that those who believe that the J-20 can't compete with other 5th gens, or that China somehow will always be a step behind, are fooling themselves, like Chamberlain was when he said that there would be "Peace in our time".
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
That isn't a very high bench mark lol. My 12 year old cousin is a better source on the Chinese military than strategy page.

I have a feeling that people on aviation week are gonna be outraged by your comparison :D :D :D.

Ideally you shouldn't have any. I think Sweetman does a pretty good job at that.

That's true, but he mostly seems to regurgitate stuff from forums, not that that is bad -- it's good to get the real news out there. Of course I'd rank sweetman way over kopp and goon. But the respective websites I think are fairly similar, simply because APA has way more information (not just about J-20), and once you read past the anti F-35 rhetoric it's alright. Also better pictures
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
?

He was saying that those who believe that the J-20 can't compete with other 5th gens, or that China somehow will always be a step behind, are fooling themselves, like Chamberlain was when he said that there would be "Peace in our time".

+1 to that. I don't think he was saying China was nazi germany or whatever. The title was/is really misleading..
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
That's true, but he mostly seems to regurgitate stuff from forums, not that that is bad -- it's good to get the real news out there. Of course I'd rank sweetman way over kopp and goon. But the respective websites I think are fairly similar, simply because APA has way more information (not just about J-20), and once you read past the anti F-35 rhetoric it's alright. Also better pictures

I agree about the information part. Kopp and Goon, despite their political agendas, have done way more research in the area of Chinese aviation than Sweetman. Frankly I was a bit disappointed when Sweetman claimed that the radar on the J-10B was AESA just because it was the "logical thing" to do.

On the other hand I have a feeling that guys like Goon, Kopp, and Richard Fisher may take stuff from the Chinese internet too seriously. I doubt that they could distinguish ordinary fanboys from the real "big shrimps". This is why we get jokes like "the J-20 flew in secret in 2006".
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
I agree about the information part. Kopp and Goon, despite their political agendas, have done way more research in the area of Chinese aviation than Sweetman. Frankly I was a bit disappointed when Sweetman claimed that the radar on the J-10B was AESA just because it was the "logical thing" to do.

On the other hand I have a feeling that guys like Goon, Kopp, and Richard Fisher may take stuff from the Chinese internet too seriously. I doubt that they could distinguish ordinary fanboys from the real "big shrimps". This is why we get jokes like "the J-20 flew in secret in 2006".
A problem of better source worse filter vs worse source better filter.
 

Martian

Senior Member
Ranking the world's premier stealth fighters

In January 2011, I ranked the stealthiness of the world's premier fighters as F-22, J-20, and F-35 (see post replicated below). Six months have passed. How does my assessment hold up in comparison to professional analysis by "Peter Goon, BEng (Mech), FTE (USNTPS), Head of Test and Evaluation, Air Power Australia" (see
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)?

Not surprisingly, the thorough analysis by Mr. Goon is in perfect agreement with my initial assessment from six months ago. Here is a key excerpt from Australia Air Power's analysis by Mr. Goon:

"Engineers and Scientists who work in ‘stealth’ (AKA ‘Low Observable’) designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: ‘Stealth’ is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).

The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. The J-20 has observed the ‘Shaping, Shaping, Shaping’ imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. The X-35 mostly observed the ‘Shaping, Shaping, Shaping’ rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, ‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to ‘Low Observability’.

While discussing ‘rear-ends’, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles. However, the difference is much like the proverbial ‘Ham Omelette’: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20.

In a market now dominated by “a total indifference to what is real”, no such option is now or ever was possible for the JSF, as its design is based upon meeting the bare minimum (a.k.a. “Threshold”) requirements of the JORD wherein “excellence is the enemy of good enough”; as has the STOVL F-35B as the baseline design; and, thus, is heavily constrained by the specified roles for this aircraft as well as the risks to reputations based political imperatives of accelerating a much-delayed and grossly over-budget program.

The issue of the use of materials to suppress radar signature is interesting. Publications show that the Chinese are making a substantial investment in use of materials to reduce radar signature and have produced large volumes of research results. So far, there have been no Chinese public disclosures on materials that make a substantial reduction of signatures across a broad range of air combat radar frequencies. Come to think of it, there are no United States research papers on the subject. Why is that, one wonders?"

-----

Let me translate Mr. Goon's insights into plain English.

1. F-22 is fully optimized for stealth. Its clean lines and flattened engine nozzles are obvious to even a casual observer.

2. The J-20 is very close to the F-22 in stealth shaping. The two notable flaws from the "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" are "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles.

3. To save money, the F-35 has a compromised design of "‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative." Also, the F-35 and the J-20 both share the round engine nozzles, which do not measure up to F-22 stealth standards.

Why are "hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts" a problem? Recall your experience of driving on a rain-slicked road at night with your headlights turned on. Very difficult to see the road, right? The rain-slicked road is almost a perfect mirror. The beams (which are electromagnetic radiation like radar waves) from the car headlights bounce away from you.

However, if there are lots of "hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts" in the road then you can see much better (like a radar receiver), because the car's lights are being bounced back into your eyes. For the same reason that you can easily see a bumpy rain-slicked road, it is much easier for a radar to detect a F-35 with bumpy surfaces.

Finally, the F-35 was always intended to be an economy-model stealth fighter. The U.S. military will not redesign the F-35's round engine nozzles. The U.S. already has the F-22. There is no point in redesigning the F-35 until it looks like a F-22. There wouldn't be any cost savings.

China's J-20 Mighty Dragon is a very different story. It is China's premier stealth fighter and its design won't be finalized until about 2018. It is likely the Chinese will alter the J-20 Mighty Dragon design in the next seven years to eliminate its partial weakness from "some curvature of the sides" and round engine nozzles. In 2018, do not be surprised to see a finalized J-20 Mighty Dragon that matches the F-22 in all-aspect stealth and with flattened engine nozzles.

----------

My January 22, 2011 post:

My estimate of J-20's RCS is 0.005-0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db)

From the front, the J-20 matches the F-22's stealth profile. While the J-20 is flying at you, the incremental increase in area from its canards is minimal (e.g. look at a piece of paper edge-wise; you only see a line). Also, the J-20's canards are probably made of composite material, coated with RAM, and curve-shaped to deflect radar waves. For all intents and purposes, the J-20 has a F-22 RCS frontal profile of 0.0001 m2.

From the rear, with its circular saw-toothed engine nozzles, the J-20 looks like the F-35 and it should have a similar rear RCS of 0.005 m2.

In conclusion, depending on your point of view, the J-20's RCS ranges from 0.005 to 0.0001 m2 (or -30 to -40 db).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Radar Cross Section (RCS) / RCS (m2) / RCS (dB)

  1. automobile 100 20
  2. B-52 100
  3. B-1(A/B) 10
  4. F-15 25
  5. Su-27 15
  6. cabin cruiser 10 10
  7. Su-MKI 4
  8. Mig-21 3
  9. F-16 5
  10. F-16C 1.2
  11. man 1 0
  12. F-18 1
  13. Rafale 1
  14. B-2 0.75 ?
  15. Typhoon 0.5
  16. Tomahawk SLCM 0.5
  17. B-2 0.1 ?
  18. A-12/SR-71 0.01 (22 in2)
  19. bird 0.01 -20
  20. F-35 / JSF 0.005 -30
  21. F-117 0.003
  22. insect 0.001 -30
  23. F-22 0.0001 -40
  24. B-2 0.0001 -40
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I have to add the F-35's "hideous bumps" were not due to cost cutting measures but rather to that the change in design of it from X-35 (enlarging weapon bays for one)
 

MiG-29

Banned Idiot
?

He was saying that those who believe that the J-20 can't compete with other 5th gens, or that China somehow will always be a step behind, are fooling themselves, like Chamberlain was when he said that there would be "Peace in our time".
he is a scaremonger he did not say these

radar power density changes from radar to radar, and quoting values f one model to another does not mean two types of radars will detect a stealth aircraft at same distances and it has been reported the F-35 can detect and jam the F-22 radars.
China’s newest combat aircraft prototype, the J-20, will require an intense development program if it is going to catch up with fast-moving anti-stealth advances.

In fact, anti-stealth will bring into question all stealth designs: How much invulnerability will current low-observability techniques offer as air defense systems adopt larger and more powerful active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars? From the early days of AESA development, a key goal was to build a radar that could detect very small objects—such as a cruise missile at a distance great enough to target and shoot it down—or a larger object like a fighter with a very low-observable treatment.

Airborne detection of stealth aircraft may already be an operational capability. In a series of tests at Edwards AFB, Calif., in 2009, Lockheed Martin’s CATbird avionics testbed—a Boeing 737 that carries the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s entire avionics system—engaged a mixed force of F-22s and Boeing F-15s and was able to locate and jam F-22 radars, according to researchers. Raytheon’s family of X-band airborne AESA radar—in particular, those on upgraded F-15Cs stationed in Okinawa—can detect small, low-signature cruise missiles.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top