New J-10 thread II

[challenge]

around 1983,aviation week and technology feature the entire content dedicate to the research and development of composite material,according to editor,since composite material such as baron and carbon fiber is consider non metallic,it is highly vulnerable to damage cause by lightning strike.
there a photo ,showing sample of composite material being damage by simulating lightning.
just how do engineer find a way to protect the composite material from being damage from lightning strike?

 

[challenge]

To Crobato,

Thanks a lot for the education. What do you think of the J-10 RCS then?

Janes Defence Weekly have speculated that the J-11B RCS is 5sqm and as low as 3sqm. I be suprised if the J-10 is above those figures.

since F-16C has RCS of 1.2 m ,it is possible J-10 overall RCS may be around 1.5~1.0 .

 

[crobato]

To Crobato,

Thanks a lot for the education. What do you think of the J-10 RCS then?

Janes Defence Weekly have speculated that the J-11B RCS is 5sqm and as low as 3sqm. I be suprised if the J-10 is above those figures.

Hard to say. The canards are a potential risk, but you need the canards to have a full 90 degree flat view to the emitter placed forward of the aircraft. Otherwise, in normal deflection, the radar is turned away from the source. The most probable point of increased RCS is when the canards are all straight, and the radar is reflecting off the blade like forward edge of the canard.

Those struts in the intake may also be another potential RCS risk. They are however, angled in such manner that the reflections go to the side, not back to the forward head on emitter. But if the emitter is to the side in the same direction to the way the struts are angled, these struts can increase the radar visibility.

The edges of the intake are also an RCS risk. It would be better if they're angled like the JF-17's, or even serrated. The F-16's intake presents about an equal level of risk.

IMO, I think its like what challenge is saying. The J-10's RCS might be close to an F-16's, probably a bit more. Its also important if the PLAAF bothers with radar reflection coatings on the canopy windshield.

 

[tphuang]

J-10's RCS probably got later versions of F-16 beat by a little bit imo. It's main advantage is that the engine blades are completely hidden. But I don't think J-10 has the same level of RAM as what is on something like F-16. I don't think J-10 put a lot of consideration into stealth, but you can at least see that in all the places where you have horizontal and vertical surface meet, they are not a pure 90 degree angle but rather curve. Which is something we can't really say about su-27/mig-29

 

[crobato]

I think the F-16's engine blades are effectively hidden away. This is typical of aircraft with an under slung intake where the intake has no boresight with the front end of the engine.

From the front, the F-16 exposes more of its cockpit (look how low the rim of the canopy and how high the pilot relatively sits) than any fighter, so the greatest RCS risk the F-16 has is in that area. Its no wonder its imperative they have to coat the canopy.

From the front, the point of the wing tip pylons on the F-16 can present a risk against higher frequency radars.

 

[Delbert]

I think the F-16's engine blades are effectively hidden away. This is typical of aircraft with an under slung intake where the intake has no boresight with the front end of the engine.

From the front, the F-16 exposes more of its cockpit (look how low the rim of the canopy and how high the pilot relatively sits) than any fighter, so the greatest RCS risk the F-16 has is in that area. Its no wonder its imperative they have to coat the canopy.

From the front, the point of the wing tip pylons on the F-16 can present a risk against higher frequency radars.

Does this mean that J-10 is more stealthier compared to any F-16 versions?

 

[crobato]

Don't know. The answer to that is to actually have the two planes measured. Otherwise its all just educated speculation. Keep an open mind, it only means it bends one way or to the other and the best way to solve it to test it with real instruments.

 

[challenge]

according to DIIC, J-10 S shape inlet are coated with RAM,it also develop new gen.RAM using nanotechnology.aside from RAM, China is alo engaging developed plasma stealth.
one short coming plasma stealth was her generator,russian plasma stealth generator weight more than 500lbs. new version cut the weight by half.
there's report that Chinese navy ship may have adapt plasma stealth.

 

[coolieno99]

Composites themselves are not radar absorbing but they let radar through. But this is worst than radar reflecting metal because radar will only go through and reflect among internal structures...

I think the B-2 gets around this by coating the internal structures and/or the backside of the skins/panels with RAM.

 

[crobato]

Maybe they actually do it, but that so seriously increases weight.