J20 Stealth Fighter

[AK471993]

I wonder how a fighter jet thread turned out to be a racial thread

Stick to the topic Guys.

 

[BackToEast]

The whole nation is wild with joy that the fact is exposed the Russian scientists had been helping Chinese to build their shit J-20.
If you cannot find the excuse you will not be able to go to sleep.
I have already thought of it ,and tell my friends that our neighbor will find some excuse.
Either J-20 is stolen from US ,or the Russian's help. Either J-20 is copied from F-20 or other place. Such kind of place or story is so easy to find.
But no matter what you say,the Chinese will not stop their steps . We depend our two hands and brains.

Maybe like Armand said our cpi is rising rapidly, or as he wished some chaos in some place in China,But the chinese know all these things we can solve by ourselves' action not big mouth words.

 

[nrj]

Stealth Fighter is not a boy's toy to show off, it's killing machine.

Yes, proved Killing machines like F35, PAKFA, Raptors, EFT, SH are released with declared specifications & are shown off in determined manner which you might not know. Only things world hear about are J10s are crashes due to unknown cannibalised engines.

 

[AK471993]

J-20 is not a copy of anything.
If you ask me,the J-20 is F-22 gone dieting

J-20 is not bigger than F-22,but Longer.F-22 looks like a tough guy,while J-20 looks like a slim beauty

 

[gogbot]

One thing most people (not from India and Russia) do agree on J20 is that it looks far more stealthy than PAK-FA which in its current form is nothing more than a redesigned Su27. Currently, except for the nose, there is nothing stealthy with that bird.

If PAK-FA is a prototype, it can only mean Russia is not capable of developing a stealth fighter and all the talk about PAK-FA being 5th gen is time wasted.

Your reaching for something that is not there buddy,

PAK-FA design principles do not call for the same uncompromising stealth as on the F-22 ,
Instead they sacrificed Stealth aspects in favor of Flight aspects whenever it was necessary , It might have a larger RCS ,
but as long as it can avoid detection for aircraft at long distances , it has four separate radar arrays on two different bands to try and find opposing aircraft.

At least the PAK-FA can be guaranteed good radar and efficient engines.

In Lamens terms ,
F-22 aim stays hidden from other aircraft ,
Pak-FA aims to always see them before they see you

The J-20 look's stealth only because we have seen the F-22 , it is in fact that resemblance in our minds ,which points us to that conclusion.
But in many ways it is not the F-22 , it will not have the same level of uncompromising stealth nor will it incorporate anywhere near the same level of technology.
Its size and Delta-canard config elude to possible poor flight characteristics.
I mean if all this is the same design policy as the F-22 , which is uncompromising stealth , all they have done is made a shitier F-22 ,
It's not going to be as good as the F-22 on any aspect. So theoretically the J-20 would loose every time

At least the PAk-fa can boast better sensors and Flight characteristics.
The F-35 it can boast better Avionics and sensory suits with better Multi-role capability.
The F-22 can always boast its claims to superior stealth aspects .

What does the J-20 bring to the table ?

Also
China has yet to demonstrate any 5th gen technology in its inducted fleet as of yet , AESA , TVC , Super cruise etc.
So all those techs are either inefficient 1st gen models(yet to be tested in the real world) or just a question mark.

While the only challenge the Russians face is incorporating a highly effective Avionics and Sensor suit.

So what exactly is it that makes the J-20 that makes it more 5-th gen , that it resembles aircraft airframe design from more than 20 years ago ?

 

[tony4562]

China's economy = (Russia + India) x 2, and in 10 years it will be 3 x.

Russia these days is in danger of falling behind China in every category of industry imaginable.

With relentless investment, and more man power (China graduates half million engineers a year while in Russia engineers are an dying breed) PAK-FA won't stand a chance.

Besides China is working on multiple 5th genl projects. Shenyang, the no.1 jet company in China, is working on a design that like PAK-FA emphasizes agility, this one is projected to fly this year.

 

[gogbot]

One thing most people (not from India and Russia) do agree on J20 is that it looks far more stealthy than PAK-FA which in its current form is nothing more than a redesigned Su27. Currently, except for the nose, there is nothing stealthy with that bird.

China's economy = (Russia + India) x 2, and in 10 years it will be 3 x.

Russia these days is in danger of falling behind China in every category of industry imaginable.

With relentless investment, and more man power (China graduates half million engineers a year while in Russia engineers are an dying breed) PAK-FA won't stand a chance.

Besides China is working on multiple 5th genl projects. Shenyang, the no.1 jet company in China, is working on a design that like PAK-FA emphasizes agility, this one is projected to fly this year.

You think you can just trow money at the problem to disappear ,
Time and money friend , that is the combination necessary, precisely how much time is needed is matter of debate
but
China has put in far to little time for you to be making such claims.


PAK-fa is designed to counter F-22's , unless the J-20 exceeds that of the F-22 performance. Or brings to table something that F-22 does not , On what category does it even compete. It is just an attempt to re-create the F-22 , which will end with obvious sub-f-22 performance , based on poor design choices.

 

[tony4562]

PAK-FA will cost 10 billion dollars, that's a small fish compared to the 70 billion dollars spent on F22, you think for that you'll get a fighter that rivals F22?

When was the last time russia built a fighter that lived up to the expectation? Mig23, Mig25, Mig29 or Su27? I have not seen a single country which bought russian jets over western offerings in an open-bid situation. Russian jets look good on paper, can have a few tricks too up the sleeve during airshows. Once loaded with weapons and fuel they immediately become flying pigs. Further more russia can make all their claims about superior avionics, but like India they don't have a modern electronics industry, so all they can do is import components from overseas. That will not get you too far.

Russia is done as a arms producer, more or less, and India is realizing that too that's why she's buying unprecedented amount of armament from the west.

Look at what China has lately achieved:


GDP based on ppp overtaking the US
Largest producer (by far) in almost every category, you name it
Company with the most patents
As many rocket launchers as the US in 2010
largest shipbuilder
Built more high-speed railways than the rest of the world combined
Fastest supercomputer in the world
Multiple larger aviation projects in advanced stage: 200-ton transport place, large engine for jumbo jets, J10, J20, JH-7, FC-1, J15, KJ-200, KJ-2000, L-15, K-8, C919, ARJ21, Z10, Z15

 

[SHASH2K2]

When was the last time russia built a fighter that lived up to the expectation? Mig23, Mig25, Mig29 or Su27? I have not seen a single country which bought russian jets over western offerings in an open-bid situation. Russian jets look good on paper, can have a few tricks too up the sleeve during airshows. Once loaded with weapons and fuel they immediately become flying pigs. Further more russia can make all their claims about superior avionics, but like India they don't have a modern electronics industry, so all they can do is import components from overseas. That will not get you too far.

But still you need sukhoi 30 mkk for your airforce . you need Russian Pesa radar for ZJ 10 and Russian Engine as well. what exactly is china contribution to planes so far made in China. metal for airframes and cockpit ? I donot see anything else .

Look at what China has lately achieved:


GDP based on ppp overtaking the US
Largest producer (by far) in almost every category, you name it
Company with the most patents
As many rocket launchers as the US in 2010
largest shipbuilder
Built more high-speed railways than the rest of the world combined
Fastest supercomputer in the world
Multiple larger aviation projects in advanced stage: 200-ton transport place, large engine for jumbo jets, J10, J20, JH-7, FC-1, J15, KJ-200, KJ-2000, L-15, K-8, C919, ARJ21, Z10, Z15

Wrong thread dude talk about these in economy thread .

 

[gogbot]

PAK-FA will cost 10 billion dollars, that's a small fish compared to the 70 billion dollars spent on F22, you think for that you'll get a fighter that rivals F22?

I spent an entire post outlining to you the difference between the F-22 and PAk-fa .
Which you clearly do not understand.

There is a difference between a stealth Hunter and Stealthy Killer.

When was the last time russia built a fighter that lived up to the expectation? Mig23, Mig25, Mig29 or Su27? I have not seen a single country which bought russian jets over western offerings in an open-bid situation. Russian jets look good on paper, can have a few tricks too up the sleeve during airshows. Once loaded with weapons and fuel they immediately become flying pigs. Further more russia can make all their claims about superior avionics, but like India they don't have a modern electronics industry, so all they can do is import components from overseas. That will not get you too far.

Your country liked the Su-27 so much , they gave it a name the J-11 and raised it as their own.

And in very recent bidding Mig-29's were chosen over your offering of the J-10 and JF-17

People are still buying Su's and Mig's , whilst no one has bought any J's despite being cheaper , I wonder why.

Russia is done as a arms producer, more or less, and India is realizing that too that's why she's buying unprecedented amount of armament from the west.

Is that why the biggest deals in Indian military history are being done with Russia ,

30 billion dollars on the FGFA , half of which India will pay for
An aircraft Carrier
MTA and Brahmos
T-90 tanks

Leasing of two Nuclear submarines.

Look at what China has lately achieved:


GDP based on ppp overtaking the US
Largest producer (by far) in almost every category, you name it
Company with the most patents
As many rocket launchers as the US in 2010
largest shipbuilder
Built more high-speed railways than the rest of the world combined
Fastest supercomputer in the world
Multiple larger aviation projects in advanced stage: 200-ton transport place, large engine for jumbo jets, J10, J20, JH-7, FC-1, J15, KJ-200, KJ-2000, L-15, K-8, C919, ARJ21, Z10, Z15

Look at what they don't have
Operational engine with Trust vectoring and Super cruise
Operational Fighter borne AESA radar
5th gen Missiles ,
Internationally comparable avionics

See all those directly matter to 5th gen fighter development

So as impressive as it might be the Largest Shipbuilder or company with most patents , they don't actually tell me anything about the J-20.

When i talk to you about the quality of the car , you don't point to all the high rises around where it is parked.
You talk to be me about the bloody car , I don't care about any of the High rises.

Do you understand that tony ?.

 

[nrj]

Look at what China has lately achieved:

GDP based on ppp overtaking the US

--> Where Counterfeited products accounts to 8+% of overall GDP.

Largest producer (by far) in almost every category, you name it

--> Chinese Milk story is enough to understand the hidden picture.

Company with the most patents

--> Any trusted global brand ranking high in genuity?

As many rocket launchers as the US in 2010

--> Everything that can be put to fire at a** doesn't build creadiability. BTW bubbles in so called space walk were entertaining.

largest shipbuilder

--> yeah and someone still bought Ukranian rusted boat by towing it from the trash corner.

Built more high-speed railways than the rest of the world combined

--> Rest of the world never wanted to breed gignantic population & invented reliable flying machines more than century ago.

Fastest supercomputer in the world

--> Computers are built as per requirement. Its not about capability but requirement.

Multiple larger aviation projects in advanced stage: 200-ton transport place, large engine for jumbo jets, J10, J20, JH-7, FC-1, J15, KJ-200, KJ-2000, L-15, K-8, C919, ARJ21, Z10, Z15

--> Cannibalised engines, stolen prototypes, unproven technologies are fundamentals of Chinese innovation. But yeah I'll be honest, you built immpressive airframes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now is 50 cent army paid topicwise or just at gross??
Because all above OT points are way too abstract to script in this J20 thread.

Instead of making BS conclusions like - PAKFA won't stand a chance against PLAF fighters or How PRC's economy is in multiples of Russia/India, post some hard facts to prove these judgements about J20. Baseless arguments are laughable at its best.

 

[tony4562]

I don't have hard evidence to back up that J20 is superior to PAK-FA, but you don't have evidence to prove your claim either. However just by look J20 looks like a stealthy fighter while PAK-FA looks like a flattened flanker. You can't deny that! Does PAK-FA have RAM coat? Does PAK-FA have one-piece cockpit? Does PAK-FA have many zig-zag patterns in the design details? Does PAK-FA have stealthy air inlets? The answer to all of them is no, one thing we we know for sure though is that PAK-FA has 0.5m^2 RCS which is more than the RCS on EF2000 or Rafale (both around 0.1 m^2). This pretty much means that PAK-FA is not a stealth fighter thus does not quality as 5th gen.

What's the RCS on J20, we don't know but it certainly looks promising as it is clearly a fighter designed with stealth in mind.

BTW, china's nominal GDP is estimated to be 6 trillion the past year, and was on path to sell 18 million cars. Go figure if my claim was on the mark or not.

 

[tony4562]

China never offered J10 to Burma which BTW is hardly a good example for a nation that chooses its military hardware using a rigorous bidding process. China did buy Su27/30 in the 90's, she had no choice, but time has changed, today's China can produce nearly anything russia has to offer. That's why sino-russian arms trade has virtually come to a complete stop. Lots of outsiders have made the mistake of looking at China through the same lens they did decades ago, and paid dearly ala Mr. Gates who claimed not long ago that a chinese stealth fighter was still on the drawing border.

 

[nrj]

I don't have hard evidence to back up that J20 is superior to PAK-FA, but you don't have evidence to prove your claim either.

I'm not making any claim either in terms of comparison. But when more info is disclosed, more reliability the contendor earns.

However just by look J20 looks like a stealthy fighter while PAK-FA looks like a flattened flanker.

Are we watching punky Hollywood flick to decide the better product? If so, its very childish & plane should find place only on poster in 15yr old fcknut's room..

1. Does PAK-FA have RAM coat?
2. Does PAK-FA have one-piece cockpit?
3. Does PAK-FA have many zig-zag patterns in the design details?
4. Does PAK-FA have stealthy air inlets?

1. It might come up with better solution than RAM coat fantasy.
2. Not required.
3. zig-zag design details???
4. Its intake are quite sound for the given airframe & teams up with the rest of structure to give stealthy features to the entire aircraft.

one thing we we know for sure though is that PAK-FA has 0.5m^2 RCS which is more than the RCS on EF2000 or Rafale (both around 0.1 m^2). This pretty much means that PAK-FA is not a stealth fighter thus does not quality as 5th gen.

Its the 1st prototype of the visioned product & the production variant will be doing better by leaps. I'm shot-dead impressed with your ability to conclude PAKFA's generation given that its just prototype flying yet. :yuck: Having said that, Is EFT/Rafale 5th Gen??

What's the RCS on J20, we don't know but it certainly looks promising as it is clearly a fighter designed with stealth in mind.

RCS looks promising ??
Stealth in mind?? Good luck to that but conclusions are drawn on delivered parameters & not whats in your mind!

BTW, china's nominal GDP is estimated to be 6 trillion the past year, and was on path to sell 18 million cars. Go figure if my claim was on the mark or not.

I do credit China's overall growth but, heard of asset bubble??

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=&id=20101207000072
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...se-GDP-a-case-of-fake-it-til-you-make-it.html
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/07/marc-faber-chinas-numbers-are-fake.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-hard-landing-why-not-2010-12

BTW put economic discussion in relevant threads. Stick to the topic.

 

[nrj]

China never offered J10 to Burma which BTW is hardly a good example for a nation that chooses its military hardware using a rigorous bidding process. China did buy Su27/30 in the 90's, she had no choice, but time has changed, today's China can produce nearly anything russia has to offer. That's why sino-russian arms trade has virtually come to a complete stop. Lots of outsiders have made the mistake of looking at China through the same lens they did decades ago, and paid dearly ala Mr. Gates who claimed not long ago that a chinese stealth fighter was still on the drawing border.

SU33 & related IPR thefts are as recent as 2009. And yeah someone also wanted just few components of SU35.

 

[gogbot]

I don't have hard evidence to back up that J20 is superior to PAK-FA,

Exactly my point,
The J-20 does not even have paper to make points with.

It's just photos on the internet. But your making tall claims with just that.

but you don't have evidence to prove your claim either.

At least with the Pak_fa we have the paper specs , to do a comparison against the F-22.
As well as Sukhois design philosophy explained

However just by look J20 looks like a stealthy fighter while PAK-FA looks like a flattened flanker.

Correction

J20 looks like a stealthy fighter

what you meant to say ,
It looks like the F-22 or the F-35 ,
Because very clearly that's what it is trying to mimic.

At the same time i don;t want you to get the impression and think that the J-20 is doing everything the F-22 and F-35 are doing , which it is'nt

PAK-FA looks like a flattened flanker.

That is an evolution of Russian Design with Stealth Aspects , one looks closely they will find many RCS reduction features and angles.
Hell Even the PAk-fa and the F-22 look a like , when you really get down to it.

The only major difference in the two aircraft is the fact that the PAk-Fa has the Tunnel between its two engines.
While that may have Increased the RCS , that increases Flight aspects as well as boost survivability in case of damage .

The Tunnel it self and the intakes Still employ RCS reduction

In fact since your so intent , Here is an expert from
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

PAK-FA Low Observable Design

The lower fuselage of the prototype displays interesting incongruities. There is an abrupt transition between the carefully sculpted faceting of the inlet nacelles, and the smoothly curved aft engine nacelles and conventional aft fuselage. The faceting strategy is similar to the F-22 design rules, with singly or doubly curved transitions between planes (C. Kopp/Sukhoi image).

The low observable design shaping employed in the PAK-FA prototype shows an excellent grasp of the design rules employed by American designers in the development of the F-22A and YF-23 Advanced Tactical Fighter. This reflects an observation made to one the authors by a senior American design engineer some years ago "we always end up doing the really hard work learning how to build these things, making it easy for the Russians to follow with their designs".

The likely exploitation of F-22A and YF-23 Advanced Tactical Fighter low observable shaping design rules was predicted through analysis as most likely during the past decade, and subsequently published in March 2009. Sukhoi's prototype shaping validated that analytical prediction5.

As observed previously, the Russian approach to development follows an "evolutionary" design philosophy, in which risks are retired early in the development phase of a new aircraft type or variant. Where possible, the retirement of risks is achieved in earlier programs, as demonstrated repeatedly in the development of the T-10 Flanker series of aircraft.

The PAK-FA prototypes displayed in January, 2010, are clearly intended to validate the compatibility of the overall observables shaping with the aerodynamic and structural design needs and clearly so, as the expensive detail RCS flare spot treatments we are accustomed to seeing on US prototypes are absent. The rationale for this is simple - why expend valuable but scarce development resources if aerodynamic / structural load testing shows that major changes are required to shaping of important design elements? For Western contractors, where the imperative is to extract the maximum of development funding from the customer, and make early cancellation of a program difficult, the highest risk approach will nearly always be sought by senior management. An excellent case study of the latter is the extremely high level of "concurrency risk", reported by the General Accounting Office, in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The risk minimisation oriented development strategy explains the absence of serrations on the ventral inlet blow-in doors, and the absence of a serrated nozzle on the interim engine design. Design features which are intended to be permanent, such as the ventral weapon bay doors, aerial refuelling probe doors, and large access panels, all employ edge alignment or serrations no differently than the B-2A, F-22A and YF-23 demonstrator.

It is important to note that VLO shaping design is the single most critical aspect of VLO design with contemporary basic technology. This is because once the shaping is fixed in the design, the cost of implementing changes is prohibitive downstream, impacting structural design, aerodynamic behaviour and internal packaging of systems. If VLO shaping is done poorly, early in the development cycle, with the F-35 lower and aft fuselages being the representative case study, no reasonable downstream investment in additional absorbent materials and structures can overcome the resulting signature problems, and may introduce additional problems with weight, cost and strength/stiffness of skin panels.

By aiming for the best possible VLO shaping in the PAK-FA design from the very outset, Sukhoi's designers have demonstrated that they understand this aspect of VLO design very well. This strategy also opens up the prospect of progressive improvements in VLO performance as the design matures, and better VLO materials technology becomes available.

The prototypes show the extensive use of what appears to be conventional riveting, and conventional construction. If genuine VLO capability is intended, extensive robotic surface coating treatment or appliqué laminate technology will be required, with both techniques requiring a highly conductive substrate layer to suppress the surface impedance discontinuities resulting from the construction technique used. As observed in other areas of the Russian industrial base, coating and surface treatment technologies are well understood, and world class capabilities are available.

The forward fuselage is closest in general configuration to the YF-23, especially in the chining, cockpit placement, and hump aft of the cockpit canopy, although the blending of the upper forward fuselage into the upper carapace is more gradual. There are important differences from the YF-23. The chine curvature design rule is purely convex, like the chine design on the F-22A. The nose height is greater, to accommodate an AESA with a much larger aperture than that intended for the YF-23 or F-22A. If flare spots are properly controlled by the application of materials and serrated edge treatments around the canopy, and a good bandpass radome design using a frequency selective multilayer laminate is employed, the shaping related RCS contribution of the forward fuselage in the S/X/Ku-bands will be similar to that observed with the F-22A, YF-23 or F-35.

The Electro-Optical System (OLS) turret employed on the prototype is likely the Su-35S OLS, and is incompatible with a VLO design, as it is a broadband spherical reflector. We can expect to see a faceted VLO fairing similar to that designed for the cancelled F-22A AIRST (Advanced IRST [Image]) in a production PAK-FA configuration.

The conventional pitot-static probes currently mounted around and forward of the cockpit are like the OLS turret, incompatible with a VLO design, and we can also expect to see these replaced with VLO design ports in a production PAK-FA configuration.

The edge aligned movable LEX are readily treated with leading edge absorbers and will not present a major RCS flare spot. The treatment of the movable join will present the principal challenge in this portion of the design. The obtuse angle in the join between the LEX and forward fuselage is characteristic of good design and is very similar to the angles used in the F-22.

The edge aligned trapezoidal main engine inlets are similar in configuration to the F-22, but with important differences. The inlet aspect ratio is different, and the corners are truncated in a manner similar to the YF-23. If properly treated with leading edge inserts and inlet tunnel absorbent materials, the inlet design should yield similar RCS to its US counterparts.

The placement of the engine centrelines well above the inlet centroids, in the manner of the YF-23, results in an inlet tunnel S-bend in the vertical plane. Sukhoi have not disclosed whether an inlet blocker will be employed. Public disclosures on Su-35S inlet treatments claimed a ~15 dB reduction in X-band RCS compared to the untreated inlet tunnels on the Su-27SK. The use of an S-bend in the PAK-FA would permit an increase in the number of surface bounces further increasing attenuation and reducing RCS.

In the S/X/Ku-bands the basic shaping of the forward fuselage will permit the attainment of genuine VLO performance with the application of mature RAS and RAM, where the centre and aft fuselage do not introduce larger RCS contributions from the forward aspect.

The wing design from a planform perspective is closest to the F-22A, and the upper fuselage similar to the YF-23, permitting the achievement of similar RCS performance to these US types, from respective aspects.

Where the PAK-FA falls well short of the F-22A and YF-23 is the shaping design of the lower fuselage and side fuselage, where the general configuration, wing/fuselage join angles, and inlet/engine nacelle join angles introduce similar intractable specular return problems as observed with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter design. These are inherent in the current shaping design and cannot be significantly improved by materials application. Like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the PAK-FA prototype design will produce a large specular return in any manoeuvre where the lower fuselage is exposed to a threat emitter, and this problem will be prominent from the Ku-band down to the L-band.

This problem is exacerbated by the inboard ventral wing root fairings, claimed by some Russian sources to be pods for the concealed carriage of folding fin close combat AAMs, such as the RVV-MD/R-74 series. While these fairings do not introduce large RCS contributions from fore or aft aspects, they will adversely contribute to beam aspect RCS, especially for threats well below the plane of flight of the aircraft.

The shaping remedy for the beam aspect signature problem lies in more obtuse join angles, which would require considerable effort in resculpting the fuselage/wing join from the main undercarriage bays to the tail, and narrowing the usable width of the lower fuselage tunnel between the nacelles. The latter is problematic. An alternative may be the use of thick RAM treatments, in effect replacing the skins of the sides of the inner forward lower fuselage tunnel with RAM panels, with some weight penalty as a result, which would not be significant relative to overall aircraft weight, given the small area to be treated.

The tailboom shaping is reminiscent of the F-22 and F-35 designs, and will not yield significant RCS contributions from the front or aft aspects. In the lower hemisphere, it will suffer penalties due to the insufficiently obtuse join angles between the wings and stabilators, and outer engine nacelles. The upper fuselage fairings which house the all moving vertical tail actuators are well shaped, and the join angles are well chosen. The outward cant of the empennage fins is similar to United States designs, and like the YF-23 tail surfaces, these are fully articulated with the VLO benefit of removing surface impedance discontinuities at the join of a conventional rudder control surface.

The axi-symmetric 3D TVC nozzles present the same RCS problems observed with the fixed axi-symmetric nozzles used in the F-35 JSF [analysis/imagery], and the application of serrated shroud treatments and tailpipe blockers as used with the F-35 JSF will not overcome the inherent limitations of this canonical shaping design. Observed from the aft hemisphere in the L-band through Ku-bands, the PAK-FA prototype configuration will produce to an order of magnitude an equally poor RCS as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter10.

The centre fuselage beavertail follows a similar chine design rule as the forward fuselage does, and will not present a significant RCS contribution from behind.

If production PAK-FA aircraft employ the same lower and aft fuselage design as the prototype does, they will be susceptible to aft hemisphere and beam aspect threats at depressed angles, operating from the L-band through to the Ku-band, in a manner no different to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

It is worth observing that the unconventional flight control capabilities of the PAK-FA do open up some possibilities, in that they permit manoeuvres such as flat turns, or even turns where the bank angle is opposite to a conventional banking turn. Such manoeuvres permit the PAK-FA to execute, without difficulty or high energy bleed, turns away from beam aspect threats without significant exposure of the problematic lower fuselage, unlike the conventional F-35 JSF which becomes unavoidably susceptible to detection, tracking and missile shots in such geometries. As the PAK-FA will provide a similar supersonic cruise capability to the F-22, its window of vulnerability is very much shorter when attempting to evade a tail aspect threat, and it has a credible capability to defeat missile shots kinematically.

Whether the current aft fuselage design of the PAK-FA is an artefact of the use of off-the-shelf Su-35S engines, or a permanent long term feature of the design, is unclear.

The general configuration of the PAK-FA aft fuselage is as compatible with the style of 2D VLO shaped TVC nozzles used in the F-22A, and integrated with the F119-PW-100 engines, as it is compatible in principle with the superb non-thrust vector aft fuselage design used in the YF-23. The latter remains the benchmark for wideband aft sector VLO fuselage design.

Producing a 3D TVC nozzle design which has similar VLO shaping performance as the F-22A 2D TVC nozzle design is not a trivial task - there is no obvious simple solution to this problem. If the Russians have solved it, it would be a major advance in VLO nozzle design.

Until Sukhoi disclose their intentions in this area, such as deployable LO shrouds for cruising flight, or provide imagery of the production PAK-FA aft fuselage design, this will remain an unresolved issue.

From an RCS engineering perspective, the shaping design of the PAK-FA is an excellent first attempt by the Russians to produce a high quality VLO design. The forward fuselage and engine inlet area shaping design is highly competitive against more recent US designs, and with mature high quality RAS and RAM application, have genuine VLO potential. The upper fuselage, wing and tail surface shaping and planform alignment are also competitive against US designs.

The problematic lower and aft fuselage designs, if retained in production aircraft, will deny the PAK-FA the kind of deep penetration capability sought in the design of the F-22A and YF-23.

The only cited RCS performance data was a recent claim by Sukhoi that the PAK-AF will have 1/40 of the RCS of the Su-35S. Unfortunately this was not qualified by threat operating band, aspect, or whether the Su-35S was clean or laden with external stores. The RCS of the Su-35S, head-on in the X-band, has not been disclosed, but given the extensive RAM treatments applied could be as low as 0.5 - 2 m2 for a clean aircraft with no stores. If the latter were true, then the PAK-FA X-band head-on RCS would be of the order of -13 to -19 dBSM. Such performance would be consistent with the shaping design, but not with the application of mature RAM and RAS to same.

Analysis of tactical options, as published in March 2009, assumed a PAK-FA forward sector X-band RCS of about -20 dBSM, which fits the outer envelope of the Sukhoi disclosure almost exactly5,6.

The Russians have claimed that the design has engine infrared signature reduction measures, but these have not been detailed. The conventional axi-symmetric nozzle design is generally ineffective, from an infrared signature perspective, as the nozzle shrouds are exposed radiators, and the cylindrical exhaust aperture radiates into a conical volume behind the aircraft.

The use of 3D TVC nozzles with high angle rates, which are fully integrated in the DFCS, would present opportunities to minimise RCS contributions resulting from aerodynamic control surface movements, by employing where possible TVC controls for primary pitch, roll and yaw control when performing stealthy penetration. Given that this flight regime entails flight in cruise configuration, and gentle turning manoeuvres to minimise bank angles, observably large deflection control inputs would be unusual and thus very infrequent. As a result the pitch, roll and yaw rates produced by the TVC system alone would be sufficient for most control inputs in the stealthy penetration regime of flight.

You can't deny that!

I just did.

Does PAK-FA have RAM coat?

I can't speak for the PAk-fa
but are You saying the J-20 does ?

Does PAK-FA have one-piece cockpit?

What is that like a must for all 5th gen aircraft

Does PAK-FA have many zig-zag patterns in the design details?

It is used where necessary like the weapon bays

Does PAK-FA have stealthy air inlets?

Yes.

one thing we we know for sure though is that PAK-FA has 0.5m^2 RCS

Did you measure that your self ,
be reasonable , No one is just going to come up to the Media and declare the RCS of their aircraft.

RCS of all the 5th gen aircraft F-22 and F-35 are all just speculation and internet make believe.

You find me a IAF or Russian Pilot or service man that say's RCS of PAK_FA or FGDA is XXX .
Then we have the plausibility that it might be the case.

which is more than the RCS on EF2000 or Rafale (both around 0.1 m^2).

Brochure figures , no one will ever declare the RCS of their aircraft

This pretty much means that PAK-FA is not a stealth fighter thus does not quality as 5th gen.

Again your making all claims without any evidence

What's the RCS on J20, we don't know but it certainly looks promising as it is clearly a fighter designed with stealth in mind.

Based on what exactly , all i saw was the basic outline of the airframe.
Did not see the bomb bay doors
No idea on any of the specs
Engines ????????????????
Radar ?????????????????
Missile ????????????????

It's all ambiguity all wherever i look

All those questions , and it looks promising just because it looks like something the US designed 20 years ago ?

BTW, china's nominal GDP is estimated to be 6 trillion the past year, and was on path to sell 18 million cars. Go figure if my claim was on the mark or not.

I told i am not interested in the High rises.

China never offered J10 to Burma which BTW is hardly a good example for a nation that chooses its military hardware using a rigorous bidding process.

True , however Russian aircraft always seem to have success at fairing well in the outcome.
That must tell you something about what it is they can offer to those countries.

China did buy Su27/30 in the 90's, she had no choice, but time has changed, today's China can produce nearly anything russia has to offer. That's why sino-russian arms trade has virtually come to a complete stop.

Your still building 100's an 100's of su-27's or J-11.
You bought Su-30MKK and MKK2 in 2000 and 2004.

You still buy 100's of Russian Engines.
Your own indigenous aircraft , JF-17 and J-10 still use Russian engines .

And very recently we have a copy of the Su-33 to serve on the Former Soviet Varrayg

Lots of outsiders have made the mistake of looking at China through the same lens they did decades ago, and paid dearly ala Mr. Gates who claimed not long ago that a chinese stealth fighter was still on the drawing border.

Well whats changed , J-20 is still just a tech demonstrator from what's been seen.
Why would they worry about something that has yet to materialize into a meaningful threat .

 

[houde10000]

Guess you haven't been looking at CPI and PPI inflation lately.

Mr. Armand2REP,

What problem chinese face today, if you believe India will catch up, then indian will face the same problem soon or late. And this is my question for indian, you don't have majority nation, culture, religious, language, when India develop to current chinese level, how do you face those problem, if China has 1% possibility of dismember, India will have 10 time high possibility, hope I am wrong.

From 2000 to 2007, chinese market suffered long time deflat, -2% every year, this is unusual for a country with 10% GDP increasing rate. Normally, under 5% inflat rate is acceptable and normal for chinese market now, just because chinese people got used to long time deflat, are very sensitive to market price increasing. I don't think it is a serious problem if GDP still can increase at high level.

 

[Armand2REP]

Mr. Armand2REP,

What problem chinese face today, if you believe India will catch up, then indian will face the same problem soon or late. And this is my question for indian, you don't have majority nation, culture, religious, language, when India develop to current chinese level, how do you face those problem, if China has 1% possibility of dismember, India will have 10 time high possibility, hope I am wrong.

From 2000 to 2007, chinese market suffered long time deflat, -2% every year, this is unusual for a country with 10% GDP increasing rate. Normally, under 5% inflat rate is acceptable and normal for chinese market now, just because chinese people got used to long time deflat, are very sensitive to market price increasing. I don't think it is a serious problem if GDP still can increase at high level.

Dude, I am not Indian for the 10th time. I have only been to India once for a steel conference. My passport is French. The French economy is so far advanced than yours the topic is not worthy of debate. We have 1.6% inflation, China in real terms is around 8%. In the property sector it is double digits every month. People are going to HK to do shopping because it is too expensive on the mainland so I know it is BAD. Can't fool me when I can watch price changes every two weeks.

 

[houde10000]

Dude, I am not Indian for the 10th time. I have only been to India once for a steel conference. My passport is French. The French economy is so far advanced than yours the topic is not worthy of debate. We have 1.6% inflation, China in real terms is around 8%. In the property sector it is double digits every month. People are going to HK to do shopping because it is too expensive on the mainland so I know it is BAD. Can't fool me when I can watch price changes every two weeks.

"French economy is so far advanced than yours", LOL, you are so funny, are we talking about indian/chinese economic? Anyway, I had a french girl friend in 2007, I knew french economy, a new grad only get less 2000EURO monthly, and everything is more expensive than us and canada, of course higher than china. 10%? 15%? 20% people no job at all? without million chinese luxury goods buyer, maybe 25% french will stay at home.

France is not easy place for indian now, and I don't think china is good place for you either, please go home!!! you don't have to suffer the chinese inflation pain, if you really keep a french passport, why you don't go India, everything is so great for you, why you stay in China, the evil communist country, no youtube, no free speech, no human right, no...................what's wrong, man?

I like business travel to china, not india, even thrice pay, i won't go.

 

[maomao]

"French economy is so far advanced than yours", LOL, you are so funny, are we talking about indian/chinese economic? Anyway, I had a french girl friend in 2007, I knew french economy, a new grad only get less 2000EURO monthly, and everything is more expensive than us and canada, of course higher than china. 10%? 15%? 20% people no job at all? without million chinese luxury goods buyer, maybe 25% french will stay at home.

France is not easy place for indian now, and I don't think china is good place for you either, please go home!!! you don't have to suffer the chinese inflation pain, if you really keep a french passport, why you don't go India, everything is so great for you, why you stay in China, the evil communist country, no youtube, no free speech, no human right, no...................what's wrong, man?

I like business travel to china, not india, even thrice pay, i won't go.

LOL haude we know about your economy and above all we employ lods of Chinese for cheap labor in India and China, my company employs them....and trust me we dont want you in our country.....u r best suited for Jobs in Africa