The entire picture looks blurred/poor quality, including both the aircraft and the background.
I don't think the nosewheel landing gear looks any more blurred than the rest of the picture.
J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
The entire picture looks blurred/poor quality, including both the aircraft and the background.
I don't think the nosewheel landing gear looks any more blurred than the rest of the picture.
I think it is the signature of RD-93 that the inner petals are longer than outer ones.
Disagree. Compare the landing gear blur with the background. To me there is a clear difference.
In my opinion the only question is if it is because the aircraft is in motion or it is deliberately blurred/lowered the resolution
Edit: from checking the above photo, it seems that the reason is because of the aicraft being in motion. Case closed
Attachments
-
IMG_20211129_215629.jpg
No, there is also a blur in the entire background and photo.
The blur of the background looks less obvious because the background is a concrete tarmac without any distinguishing shape or features; it is just a patch of colour.
If you view the rest of the image, such as where the tarmac meets the grass, or at various vertical sicks and objects sticking out in the grass, or the bottom of the buildings edge at the top of the image, the same degree of blur is obvious.
More importantly, the speed of an aircraft taxiing on a runway will not be able to result in the aircraft alone having blur due to movement artefact.
The entire image can be explained just by a bad camera on maximum digital zoom.
I'm pretty sure you could fit 6-7 PL-15 inside J-10 and 4-5 PL-15 inside J-35, if there a foldable wing version of the missile. Also, just get rid of the centerline dividing the two internal weapon bays.
It’s called compression artefacting.
This has been speculated for many times. Most agree that the centerline divide is there to keep the body rigid. Rumor has it that China has been working on a new AAM that can fit 6 in J20's main weapon bay. Don't know if it is a new variant of PL-15 or a complete new missle though.
About the image from Twitter: I put it into Photoshop and played with it a bit. Here's what I can tell (just take note that I'm a very practical user of PS, not a professional graphic specialist, but I know how computer graphics works):
The image has low resolution because it most likely was taken from very far away. It's 800x600 for Twitter but it is not the kind of image that you get by reducing a 4096x3072 image in size. To me it looks like a large (5MP or more) image taken at a large distance. The aircraft could have been moving but it wasn't moving very fast because it is only slightly more distorted than the buildings in the background.
The image also has been saved with a very high compression rate which produces the distortions. It has 54,5kB but when I saved it with the "natural" compression rate in PS it showed "high" and resulted in 84.8kB. That's a lot for a few added single-color lines. So the compression algorithm had to be set to minimize size.
Take a look at this.
The thin elements have similar distortions around them as the wheels - that's because some compression algorithms make a mess of pixels when they have to compress an image with thin high-contrast elements. Raster images work by assigning numerical values to every pixel in the image and compression works by averaging the values with specific weighed algorithms. It works very well for fuzzy blotches of various shades of green like compressing trees but not for thin elements like a sign post or the supports of the wheel. This is how you get the "shadow" that looks like a blur. Those distortions are most likely an artifact i.e. an error in the image resulting from an imperfect mathematical formula.
However I also outlined what was a fairly clear rectangular blur region on the aircraft's nose. You can recognize it by opening the (original) image in any raster editor and see the sharp straight lines of separation between two different fields of pixels. They have different colour averages. That's a blur effect hiding something. I can't tell how legible it was because the blur is essentially almost an uniform colour area.
Hope this is helpful.
The image has low resolution because it most likely was taken from very far away. It's 800x600 for Twitter but it is not the kind of image that you get by reducing a 4096x3072 image in size. To me it looks like a large (5MP or more) image taken at a large distance. The aircraft could have been moving but it wasn't moving very fast because it is only slightly more distorted than the buildings in the background.
The image also has been saved with a very high compression rate which produces the distortions. It has 54,5kB but when I saved it with the "natural" compression rate in PS it showed "high" and resulted in 84.8kB. That's a lot for a few added single-color lines. So the compression algorithm had to be set to minimize size.
Take a look at this.
The thin elements have similar distortions around them as the wheels - that's because some compression algorithms make a mess of pixels when they have to compress an image with thin high-contrast elements. Raster images work by assigning numerical values to every pixel in the image and compression works by averaging the values with specific weighed algorithms. It works very well for fuzzy blotches of various shades of green like compressing trees but not for thin elements like a sign post or the supports of the wheel. This is how you get the "shadow" that looks like a blur. Those distortions are most likely an artifact i.e. an error in the image resulting from an imperfect mathematical formula.
However I also outlined what was a fairly clear rectangular blur region on the aircraft's nose. You can recognize it by opening the (original) image in any raster editor and see the sharp straight lines of separation between two different fields of pixels. They have different colour averages. That's a blur effect hiding something. I can't tell how legible it was because the blur is essentially almost an uniform colour area.
Hope this is helpful.
Looks like compression artifact.
No you can't just get rid of the divider. It is a structural element. If it weren't necessary, it wouldn't be there.
6 PL-15 in J-20 max and that's with folding fins. Also this is speculation since we know they have the rails and electronics for 6 MRAAMs in main bay. 6 PL-12s with folding fins or correct stacking is almost guaranteed though.
4 PL-15 in J-35 max.
New air to air missiles could be designed to increase bay capacity but those certainly would come with missile energy penalties if the rest of the tech remain more or less the same.
Here the calculations for optimal effectiveness varies with mission and with adversary. I would imagine there is absolutely a point in developing thin medium range A2A missiles so that J-20 and J-35 can increase missile capacity since each missile has the potential to splash one target so carrying more missiles simply return FAR greater utility in most missions and against most adversaries, particularly ones with low or no means of countering stealth. Therefore both the US and China probably are looking at developing various forms of future A2A weapons like the Russians already have done for some scaled down "mini" missiles.
The more missiles you can put onto a stealth fighter, the better it is. Of course while preserving stealth and some decent performance ie without overloading it with too much extra weight. Only some missions would make it vital for it to carry fewer but longer ranged missiles.