J20 Stealth Fighter

[StealthFlanker]

It is a ridiculous allegation. An F-35 is a single-engine aircraft that was originally designed as a bomb truck (with current lateral maneuverability of 5G or less). A Chinese J-20 is a twin-engine long-range multirole fighter with lateral maneuverability of 9G.

Nonsense , F-35 is a multirole aircraft not a bomb trucky
Secondly , 5G is its sustained turn rate rating at 20K feet , mach 0.8 . It doesnot mean the maximum instantaneous G of F-35 is also 5G. Why ? because going to higher altitude mean thinner air , thinner air mean less thrust and lift. Case in point , an F-16 with instantaneous and sustained G rating of 9G at sea level can barely sustained 3.4G at Mach 0.8 , 30K feet

Do you want me to go through the history of the J-20 again? The J-10B was the test platform for the DSI and RAM-coated cockpit canopy.

While i dont care much for some national chest thumping contest , DSI and Goldern canopy both was tested on F-16 before F-35. And even F-35 design was completed before J-10B , so technically speaking , it not that strange if Chinese design get influenced by it

For example, China's stealth coating for its aircraft is almost 20 years old. "At the 1998 Zhuhai Air Show, the [Chinese] Seek Optics Company displayed information of its stealth coating and software for stealth shaping.[63]" (Source

This doesn't mean anything , there are hundred different kind of RAM ,each has different absorbing rating

 

[Martian]

Nonsense , F-35 is a multirole aircraft not a bomb trucky
Secondly , 5G is its sustained turn rate rating at 20K feet , mach 0.8 . It doesnot mean the maximum instantaneous G of F-35 is also 5G. Why ? because going to higher altitude mean thinner air , thinner air mean less thrust and lift. Case in point , an F-16 with instantaneous and sustained G rating of 9G at sea level can barely sustained 3.4G at Mach 0.8 , 30K feet

While i dont care much for some national chest thumping contest , DSI and Goldern canopy both was tested on F-16 before F-35. And even F-35 design was completed before J-10B , so technically speaking , it not that strange if Chinese design get influenced by it

This doesn't mean anything , there are hundred different kind of RAM ,each has different absorbing rating

Have you heard of the Korean and Vietnam Wars? Dogfights do no occur at 50,000 feet. Fighter aircraft engage one another at lower elevations. Thus, the 4.5 to 5G limit applies to the F-35.

The F-35 is a bomb truck. It does not have a bubble canopy. The pilot cannot see behind the wall to his back. The cockpit canopy on the F-35 resembles the F-111. Thus, the US military is trying to implement an electronic version of "seeing" through the back wall. This software solution has encountered numerous problems with lack of resolution and frame-rate delay.

The original F-35 had a smooth underside and it was only designed to carry bombs, like a bomb-truck. After the development of China's J-20, the US expanded the two internal weapon bays on the underside which caused all of the non-stealthy bulging.

The original F-35 design did not have a gun. A gun was added as an afterthought and it sticks out as a non-stealthy bulge on the F-35A above the left air-intake.

The F-35B does not have a gun, but it can carry an optional gun-pod below the aircraft. This is not very stealthy.

The F-35 has a long gestation period (about 13 years now and counting), because the original F-35 bomb-truck design is being modified into a more survivable aircraft. However, all of the ad hoc changes has drastically compromised the stealth and performance of the F-35. The weight issues of cramming more capability into a too-small bomb truck frame has led to a severely compromised fighter.

The F-35 started as a bomb truck design. The US is trying to add air-to-air capability to a too-small F-35 airframe that has led to a severely underperforming fighter. The F-35 is a bomb-truck that is trying to pretend to be a multi-role fighter. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. The F-35 (owing to its true heritage as a bomb truck) was never designed to supercruise and it never will. The F-35 is an inferior fighter and it is out-gunned and out-missiled by real multirole fighters like the Chinese J-20 that flies at 66,000 feet.

Real multirole fighters like the J-20, J-31, and F-22 all have a service ceiling of 66,000 feet. Only the F-35 flies much lower at a service ceiling of 50,000 feet. The F-35 is a bomb-truck trying to pretend to be a multirole fighter. It is inferior to the real J-20, J-31, and F-22 multirole fighters with real bubble cockpit canopies for a 360-degree view and a much higher service ceiling of 16,000 more feet than the F-35.
----------

Summary of reasons that F-35 is more like a bomb truck than a multirole fighter. We compare the F-35 to real multirole fighters like the J-20, J-31, and F-22.

1. The J-20, J-31, and F-22 have a 360-degree bubble cockpit canopy to spot enemy fighters. You can't see behind the F-35 due to the presence of a bomb-truck-like wall. The proposed electronic solution for the F-35 doesn't currently work. There are resolution and frame-rate issues.

2. The J-20, J-31, and F-22 have twin engines for faster acceleration. The F-35 has a single engine for slow acceleration. The Pentagon has lowered the acceleration specifications for the F-35 twice. The F-35 cannot meet its original acceleration specification. It's too heavy (weight issue) and too slow (single engine disadvantage).

3. The J-20, J-31, and F-22 are designed to supercruise. The F-35 is NOT designed to supercruise.

4. The J-20, J-31, and F-22 have 9G lateral maneuverability. F-35 has 4.5G to 5G lateral maneuverability depending on the model.

5. The J-20, J-31, and F-22 have an internal cannon built into the airframe of the aircraft. The F-35A has a big lump added above its left air intake. The F-35B has no internal cannon, but an optional external gun pod has been developed.

The F-35 was originally designed as a bomb truck. It has been heavily altered to create a multirole capability. However, the cost has been a severe loss in stealth (due to airframe design changes) and a huge loss in performance (due to weight issues and inability to meet original acceleration parameters). The weight issue is a recurring problem, because the engineers are trying to cram a lot of unexpected equipment onto the original F-35 bomb truck design.

Thus, the F-35 is taking forever to complete development. You want to see behind the F-35? Now, you need to add lots of computers and electronics. This weight forces compromises in other areas. Thus, the F-35 is a perpetual game of adding need capability for a "multirole" fighter that forces removal of other equipment. This leads to a compromised F-35.

 

[Martian]

Hmmm very interesting read. Thanks for sharing this.

The interesting part of Chinese jet fighter technology development is that we can see China struggle through every technological problem.

By looking through the mountain of published research papers, we know that China was working on a specific nickel-alloy blend in a particular year. If you put all of the research papers together, you can see China increasing its expertise in the temperature, pressure, tensile strength, etc. of its nickel-alloy single-blade crystal technology.

After completing the hurdle of developing a strong-enough nickel-alloy single-blade crystal, we saw China struggle for a few years when the WS-10A had a spooling problem. It was taking about twice as long to spool up as other jet fighter turbofan engines.

Thus, it is absurd to claim China downloaded F-35 computer files to build the Chinese Chengdu J-20 fighter. If China had the computer files, it wouldn't encounter all of these technological problems that take years to solve.

The American F-35 project began in 2003. China had been working on the WS-10 turbofan engine back in the 1980s and 1990s. Furthermore, China publicly provided information on its stealth coating in 1998. All of the technologies that we see on the Chengdu J-20 PRECEDED the beginning of the F-35 project.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Have you heard of the Korean and Vietnam Wars? Dogfights do no occur at 50,000 feet. Fighter aircraft engage one another at lower elevations. Thus, the 4.5 to 5G limit applies to the F-35

You are writing nonsense as usual
Firstly ,the 5 G limits of F-35 is not the structure G limit but the sustained G limit at a specific data point ( Mach 0.8 , 20K feet ).There are a significant different between the 2 data point. The structure G limit of F-35 is 9G ,and it has already been tested to 9.9G

At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.
The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1025143

Secondly, as mentioned earlier , instantaneous G limit and sustained G limit are not the same value , they differ due to speed and altitude. Case in point , ultimate G limit of F-22 is 9 G , however at 30K feet , Mach 0.9 , it can barely sustain 3.7 G

Thirdly, there are many fighters that got operational G limit lower than 9G such as Su-27 ( ultimate G limit at 8.5G when 50% loaded and 6G when at 100% internal fuel ) or Mig-29 ( limited to less than 7.5G at all altitude when IAS is higher than 500 knots ) or F-15 ( ultimate G limit limited to 7.33 G) . Yet all those fighter will have no problem dogfighting with a 9G fighter like F-16, why ? because not all dogfight happened at sea level. Moreover, ultimate G limit doesnot mean shit if you dont know their CLmax or dynamic thrust , an aircraft with high CLmax can easily get extremely high turn rate with low speed (and thefore low G ). An aircraft with high dynamic thrust can have extremely high sustained turn rate

The F-35 is a bomb truck. It does not have a bubble canopy

Do you know what else doesnot have a bubble canopy ? PAK-FA , J-31 , J-20

The pilot cannot see behind the wall to his back

Ever heard of DAS ?

 

[StealthFlanker]

The cockpit canopy on the F-35 resembles the F-111

Really ? in exactly what way ?

The original F-35 had a smooth underside and it was only designed to carry bombs, like a bomb-truck. After the development of China's J-20, the US expanded the two internal weapon bays on the underside

Nonsense ,the named of program itself is JSF = join strike fighter , it was intended to replaced F-16 , F-18 , AV-8B and A-10. F-16 is basically the backbone fighter of USAF

 

[StealthFlanker]

which caused all of the non-stealthy bulging. The original F-35 design did not have a gun. A gun was added as an afterthought and it sticks out as a non-stealthy bulge on the F-35A above the left air-intake.

Oh , i see , now you repeated the non stealthy bump nonsense despite being schooled last time and couldnt said anything. No problem , i will just quote my previous post
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-4k-quality-alert-5.77722/page-3#post-1226929
just because the F-35 has lump on it doesnot mean it is not stealthy ( as long as those lump has continues curve , it doesnt matter) , in fact B-2 design has even bigger lump than F-35 ,yet still considered a more stealthy design compared to F-117

the F-117, was designed with a computer program that could only predict reflections from flat surfaces, necessitating a fully faceted shape , while those help reduce specular reflection , they suffered from significant diffraction at every edge. The lower the frequency , the worse this effect became.That is why all later stealth aircraft such as B-2 , F-35 , F-22 use blended facets. Shapes composed of blended facets are not only more aerodynamic,but also allow currents to smoothly transition at their edges, reducing surface-wave emissions. Therefore, blended bodies have the potential for a lower RCS than fully faceted structures ,especially at low frequencies regime

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/radar-electronic-countermeasure/

-----------------------------------------------
Let have some history lesson first, Lockheed Martain engineer designed the F-117 with loads of sharp edge on it , very good in reducing specular reflection but got some problem with edge diffraction

when they designed the F-22 , they start to use continuous curve ( blended facet) on it to address diffraction problem . Obvious that would also mean a slightly widening of specular reflection lobes but generally that not a problem because those spikes will be directed at very few specific angle

But if we follow your logic Then suddenly when it come to the F-35 they are like nah fuck it , fuck capitalism , let curve the F-35 belly randomly for fun so that our fighter not only has wider specular reflection lobes but still suffered from edge diffraction ? ,in other words what make you think they cannot give those lump a sharp edge had they wanted to ???

 

[StealthFlanker]

Have to separate my post because it go over the image limit , but anyway here you go

Main reason many people think lumps , circular shape are not stealthy is because that what they saw on legacy not stealthy aircraft , missiles

Then they saw stealth missiles and stealth aircraft with facets and angular shape

Since most people dont have the deep understanding of electromagnetic physics , their general conclusion from what they observed would be " many edge = stealth , many round shape = not stealth ". That what lack of knowledge will give you.
While they appear to be similar , the signature characteristic of those lumps on stealth fighter and the circular tube body of legacy aircraft are not the same at all. The main problem with a round tube like on F-104 or Tomahawk missiles is that they allow creeping wave return to come back to the source (radar surface wave will curved around the nose then come back), which is why they are so bad for stealth and VLO aircraft dont have circular tube body

But on stealth aircraft , while they have circular lumps , those lumps never complete a full circle or located at the edge , so even though surface wave still curve around those things , they do not came back to the source
As a final hit

“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/...he-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

Hostage caused a stir in late spring when, in press interviews, he said the F-35 would be stealthier than the F-22, its larger USAF stablemate. Conventional wisdom had pegged the F-22, with its angled, vectored-thrust engines, as a stealthier machine than the F-35. Hostage also said the F-35 would be unbeatable when employed in numbers, which is why the full buy of aircraft is "so critical."

"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December 2014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

 

[StealthFlanker]

The F-35B does not have a gun, but it can carry an optional gun-pod below the aircraft. This is not very stealthy

So what is the RCS of F-35B with the gun pod ? , you said it is not stealthy so where is the radar scattering graph ? what is the exact RCS value in that condition ?

The F-35 has a long gestation period (about 13 years now and counting)

More complex fighter require more development time , simple as that

because the original F-35 bomb-truck design is being modified into a more survivable aircraft

Absolute nonsense with zero evidence

However, all of the ad hoc changes has drastically compromised the stealth and performance of the F-35. The weight issues of cramming more capability into a too-small bomb truck frame has led to a severely compromised fighter.The F-35 started as a bomb truck design. The US is trying to add air-to-air capability to a too-small F-35 airframe that has led to a severely underperforming fighter.

So what is the performance of J-20 , J-31 compared to F-35 ? what are their RCS , STR , ITR , subsonic acceleration , Supersonic acceleration ?

The F-35 is a bomb-truck that is trying to pretend to be a multi-role fighter. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig

That seem to fit J-20 more especially considered that it got weak engine compared to its size. J-31 is basically a F-35 with weaker engine at the moment

The F-35 (owing to its true heritage as a bomb truck) was never designed to supercruise and it never will

F-35 can maintain Mach 1.2 on dry thrust , on the otherhand , there is absolute zero evidence that J-20 or J-31 can do similar thing

The F-35 is an inferior fighter and it is out-gunned and out-missiled by real multirole fighters like the Chinese J-20

Despite being much larger , J-20 carry the same amount of BVR missiles as F-35 , and will be inferior to it once F-35 reached block 5

Real multirole fighters like the J-20, J-31, and F-22 all have a service ceiling of 66,000 feet. Only the F-35 flies much lower at a service ceiling of 50,000 feet

There is no evidence that either J-20 or J-31 can reach 66,000 feet. F-22 service celling is only 60,000 feet. Secondly , service ceilling is not where aircraft fly. It is is the maximum usable altitude of an aircraft where the maximum rate of climb is equal around 100 ft/min. No sane pilot want to fly at aircraft service ceiling unless he want to have close to zero excess power for maneuver. And pilots are not allowed to excess 50Kfeet for more than a few minutes without a pressure suit.In reality, most fighter cruise between 35-40K feet

The J-20, J-31, and F-22 have a 360-degree bubble cockpit canopy to spot enemy fighters. You can't see behind the F-35 due to the presence of a bomb-truck-like wall.

Apart from F-22 which has sort of frameless bubble canopy ( not exactly F-16 level of bubble canopy ), the rest of J-20 , J-31 , F-35 , none has bubble canopy

The proposed electronic solution for the F-35 doesn't currently work. There are resolution and frame-rate issues.

There used to issue with frame rate delay , not anymore. And the resolution of AAQ-37 far excess all WVR missiles seeker

2. The J-20, J-31, and F-22 have twin engines for faster acceleration. The F-35 has a single engine for slow acceleration

Absolute nonsense , the number of engines has nothing to do with acceleration rate. Case in point , F-16 has a single engine , yet it can accelerate faster than Su-27 , F-14D , F-18 which are equipped with 2 engine.Secondly , F-35 subsonic acceleration rate at subsonic speed ( where dogfight happened ) actually superior to both Su-27 and Su-35. To sum up there is no evidence that either J-20 or J-31 can beat F-35 in acceleration regardless whether it is subsonic or supersonic

The J-20, J-31, and F-22 are designed to supercruise. The F-35 is NOT designed to supercruise.

There is no evidence that either J-31 or J-31 can supercruise

The J-20, J-31, and F-22 have 9G lateral maneuverability. F-35 has 4.5G to 5G lateral maneuverability depending on the model.

As usual Idiotic comment demonstrated no understanding of aerodynamic

5. The J-20, J-31, and F-22 have an internal cannon built into the airframe of the aircraft. The F-35A has a big lump added above its left air intake. The F-35B has no internal cannon, but an optional external gun pod has been developed.

So where does the internal cannon located on J-20 , J-31 ? , i bet you cant because neither got it yet

original F-35 bomb truck design

For a man who has close to zero understanding of electromagnetic and aerodynamic , you sure like to use the word " bomb truck" and " compromise"

 

[StealthFlanker]

I recall G limit of Su-27 wrong , at 21400 kg or around 50% fuel . The G limit is 8G until Mach 0.85 , above Mach 0.85 the G limit reduced down to around 6.3 G

For F-15 , structure G limit is about 7.3G at 46K pounds

And those are ultimate structure G limit , not even sustained G limit. Yet , no one has problem with those aircraft being fighter

 

[shiphone]

Happy New Year 2017
-------------
by 机外停车

2016 has landed

2017 is taking off...

 

[bhramos]

New image of the Chengdu J-20 now believed to be formally in service with the PLAAF

 

[scatterStorm]

I saw this video, I don't know if this is the latest one, but it was uploaded 17hs ago by "ArmedForcesUpdate" channel, here take a look.


Is it a strategic display or notice any changes? What is the possibility that this jet has a 117s engine on them re-engineerd from SU35s they bought recently?

I think they are just showing there goods in response to the USN CSG-1 patrolling in the disputed waters.

 

[IndianHawk]

What is the possibility that this jet has a 117s engine on them re-engineerd from SU35s they bought recently?

None !!

First of all they might have received su35 just recently. Anyway engine can't be re-engineered just like that. Otherwise china would have been independent in this field long ago.

Also buying su35 itself shows how much confidence china has in j20 and likes.

 

[scatterStorm]

None !!

First of all they might have received su35 just recently. Anyway engine can't be re-engineered just like that. Otherwise china would have been independent in this field long ago.

Also buying su35 itself shows how much confidence china has in j20 and likes.

I do understand that, I agree that engines can't be re-engineered in such short duration, but maybe they have fitted a 117s just to test it's flight characteristics and data gathering job.

Agreed on the latter part too:biggrin2:.

 

[J20!]

Also buying su35 itself shows how much confidence china has in j20 and likes.

They bought 24 Su35's. 24. If they didn't have confidence in jets procured from Chengdu and Shenyang, I would think they'd order hundreds of Su35's not just two dozen air-frames. Their probably establishing another aggressor squadron, like how the initial Su30MKK's were used to develop tactics.

India is ordering hundreds of foreign jets, that's an indication of low confidence in local defense manufacturing.

 

[Hari Sud]

Do not pay too much attention to Chinese stealth fighter. It is all stolen and copied technology either direct stealing on a disk or on the internet, it is without understanding it. These fighters are good as long as they keep them away from experienced analysts and evaluators.

Much of what has gone inside this fighter is Chinese stuff which is also copied from many places. Now they are having trouble copying it because barriers and firewalls have been built which from 2001 to 2010 did not exist. Hence they have got half technology without metallurgy and are having trouble bridging the gap, hence their own technology which is half truth.

Now to discourage overseas Chinese and paid consultants working for Chinese, US and others are leaving half completed or incorrect technology on the internet which is accessed by the Chinese with ease. Idea is to figure out who and from where this technology theft is happening. At times it lead straight to China andvservers in Peking. Trap doors were built in the stolen software and it allowed virus to destroy not only today's technology stolen but destroy previously stolen.

Hence further developments in china gave paused but they are still claiming breakthroughs to keep the local morale high and keep the outsiders guessing.

 

[Anikastha]

They bought 24 Su35's. 24. If they didn't have confidence in jets procured from Chengdu and Shenyang, I would think they'd order hundreds of Su35's not just two dozen air-frames. Their probably establishing another aggressor squadron, like how the initial Su30MKK's were used to develop tactics.

India is ordering hundreds of foreign jets, that's an indication of low confidence in local defense manufacturing.

We are procuring twin engine aircraft's...for single engine we got our own. Our aeronautical field is bit behind yours....ask this same question after lika a decade.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00LD using Tapatalk

 

[IndianHawk]

They bought 24 Su35's. 24. If they didn't have confidence in jets procured from Chengdu and Shenyang, I would think they'd order hundreds of Su35's not just two dozen air-frames. Their probably establishing another aggressor squadron, like how the initial Su30MKK's were used to develop tactics.

India is ordering hundreds of foreign jets, that's an indication of low confidence in local defense manufacturing.

Who are you trying to convince with spacious argument and counter attack.

Yes India is importing the kind of planes it is not producing itself.
China is importing kind of planes that it is producing itself.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

I do understand that, I agree that engines can't be re-engineered in such short duration,

Aero Engines can never be re engineered actually.

Problem is not designing, even India has been producing turbofans long back, problem is mentallurgy.
You need superalloy blades for turbofan engines with high thrusts which could resist hot corrosion and better design to fine tune & stabilize your engine.
Su-35 engine has something similar, it's afterburning Turbofan where China still lags.
China will love to get it to mature their WS Engine series but they still need time for better superalloys IMO.

They bought 24 Su35's. 24. If they didn't have confidence in jets procured from Chengdu and Shenyang, I would think they'd order hundreds of Su35's not just two dozen air-frames. Their probably establishing another aggressor squadron, like how the initial Su30MKK's were used to develop tactics.

Let's look the technical way,
You are ahead of Russians in EOTS,
But you are drooling over it's afterburning turbofan, Ibris-E phased array radar & EW Suite.:biggrin2:
You guys will again reverse engineer it, I can bet over it.

India is ordering hundreds of foreign jets, that's an indication of low confidence in local defense manufacturing.

Nice way of retaliation!
We are very new in aircraft production industry.
Adding, our production rate is too low as well. And yes, we too are yet to have some advanced techs, behind China.

I have no shame in admitting that.

 

[Willy2]

Do not pay too much attention to Chinese stealth fighter. It is all stolen and copied technology either direct stealing on a disk or on the internet, it is without understanding it. These fighters are good as long as they keep them away from experienced analysts and evaluators.

Much of what has gone inside this fighter is Chinese stuff which is also copied from many places. Now they are having trouble copying it because barriers and firewalls have been built which from 2001 to 2010 did not exist. Hence they have got half technology without metallurgy and are having trouble bridging the gap, hence their own technology which is half truth.

Now to discourage overseas Chinese and paid consultants working for Chinese, US and others are leaving half completed or incorrect technology on the internet which is accessed by the Chinese with ease. Idea is to figure out who and from where this technology theft is happening. At times it lead straight to China andvservers in Peking. Trap doors were built in the stolen software and it allowed virus to destroy not only today's technology stolen but destroy previously stolen.

Hence further developments in china gave paused but they are still claiming breakthroughs to keep the local morale high and keep the outsiders guessing.

This espionage incident also leave a bad remarks about Chinese national in defense companies , few years ago I read in a paper that a german aeronautics farm (May be DASA now) sack it's one employ as he marries a Chinese woman ,on court hearing company said that they can't trust the employ anymore as his wife is chinese , she can be a CCP agent ,etc . So these kind of fear now defense companies have against chinese.
I hope this type of expression don't exist for Indian.