So.. the current silvery nozzle engines are not a WS-10 variant?
J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
So.. the current silvery nozzle engines are not a WS-10 variant?
By undersized I think meant when the nozzles are contracted? The nozzles look huge when they are open although this is mostly an optical illusion.
We don't know for sure.
Yeah I noticed that too. Hopefully the final engine have stealthy nozzles. I suppose it's a bit much to hope for F-22 style ones? Apparently the PAK FA will be getting rectangular nozzles either when it gets into production or in later variants.
But if the part about 3D thrust vectoring is true then they need some sideway clearance for the nozzle to turn. Though I don't expect something more than 30 deg.
Which is why I think the T-50 should go with 3D tvc. One of the few advantages of a large gap between the engines is that it gives the nozzles enough room to move.
Martian
Senior Member
Re: J-20 can supercruise and is more stealthy than F-35
To be thorough, I should mention the F-35 has two "lumps" on the topside (above the air inlets) as well.
1. In a much earlier post, I quoted a J-20 Chinese test pilot who confirmed the J-20 can supercruise. F-35 cannot.
2. J-20 has a clean design like the F-22. I have already mentioned the two flaws in the J-20 design that makes it currently inferior to the F-22 (e.g. "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles). However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."
3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."
In conclusion, aside from avionics, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the F-35 in both supercruise ability and stealth across all "nine radio-frequency bands."
----------
"In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[126] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[127] The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.[127] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[128] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[129][130]"
F-35 with "‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."
----------
J-20 Mighty Dragon has smooth and flat underside.
"This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.
Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi).
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."
[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the J-20 underside picture and Stereospace for the F-35 underside picture.]
To be thorough, I should mention the F-35 has two "lumps" on the topside (above the air inlets) as well.
I am just happy with a bigger engine. TV or not.
Bigger engine... higher top speed. more war loads.
TVC may not just be good for improving manoeuvrability. Sweetman said that employing the TVC during the cruise phase of the mission will decrease the usage of flight control surfaces and lower the chance of radar detection.
- Status