- May 28, 2016
Counter to point 1: (read carefully this time)
Untrue. So far we've seen 2 layers of edge treatments. Images of the J20 in primer show either or both sawtooth paterns and composite stealth structures on all control surfaces:
In addition to the edge treatment, all access hatches and operating doors are sawtoothed and all apetures are edge-aligned as seen above.
The edge treatment on the J20 once painted in also obvious to see. The inlets, canards, LERX, wing leading edge, vertical stabilizers, tail booms and vertical fins are all treated.
Please provide the photos that show the untreated edges you allude to...
The APA modelling was done on the very 1st prototype shortly after its first flight; which is why it is a "preliminary assessment". There have been 3 iterative changes to the airframe since. Which is why they repeatedly allude to a "matured production airframe". Ofcourse the study has limitations judging by the fact that they do not have access to the actual airframe.
Exactly. So where do you hear him calling it a bomber? Large fuel capacity, good supersonic performance, LO airframe. Where does "bomber" come in? The F22 can carry 2 2000lb bombs or 8 SDB's internally but its never been called a bomber? I'm not even sure it has any cruise missiles integrated with it.
We've NEVER seen any kind of A2G ordinance on the J20. Even in its operations with J16's and J10's its always operated in an air superiority role to clear the way for A2G ladden J16's.
Your "bomber" assertions come with no evidence other that "its large". Well yeah, so is the SU35, but its not a bomber either. The performance requirements for the JXX programme have all pointed towards air superiority, not a bomber role. According to pentagon intel reports there are VLO strategic and regional bomber platforms in the works for the PLAAF.
Eventually the PLAAF will integrate a2g munitions on the J20 as the platform matures however, even being capable of undertaking SEAD or classic strike missions does not make it a "bomber".
Nice write up from Rick Joe from the diplomat below. I have a subscription, but I believe the first 5 articles are free or something.
- Again, the FC31 is not a PLA sanctioned project yet.
- In addtion, the FC31 does not have the same PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS as the JXX programme. its a medium-weight airframe with obviously a much smaller range.
- The FC31 even if it where purchased by the PLAAF is not a successor or replacement for the J20. The VLO intecerpt and air superiority mission would still fall to the J20, so your point is moot
- The losing bid for the JXX programme was a "conventional stealth airframe WITH CANARDS ie. the J20 met the requirements for stealth, supercruise, supersonic and transonic maneuvering better than the "conventional airframe".
- Just like the operational SU57, F35 and the yet to fly AMCA and KFX, the J20 is not VLO in the rear aspect because it uses conventional engine nozzles which brings compromises to detection in the IR spectrum. J20, SU57 and F35 have RCS reduction measures applied in the rear aspect, but overall, I believe its quite telling that none of them went the F22 route. How much does it really impact operational viability in the air superiority role not to have full all aspect stealth? Is it worth the price and weight penalties?
Was this "proposed design" subjected to aerodynamic modelling and wind tunnel testing? Which studies support the implementation of such a design? What are the aerodynamic implications of changing the shape and size of the canards? And what are the aerodynamic implications of placing the wings there? What are the weight penalties of using that nozzle arrangement and which engines will compensate for that weight with additional thrust? What with the abnormal placement of the vertical stabilizers? How will this design compensate for Yaw instability created by removing the vental fins? How does this model overcome the penalty of lift loss from the shift away from dihedral canards?
Armchair aeronautical engineers can put up all the fantasy designs they want on the net, but they :
So I'd call that "design" worthless when weighed against the considerations made by Dr. Yang Wei, his team or their predecessors at 611 institute which materialized into the J20 programme as we see it today.
- Do not have access to ALL the requirements put on the airframe
- Do not have access to the modelling required to produce a viable platform
- Do not have access to wind tunnels and anechoic chambers to assess the aerodynamic or VLO performance of their "designs"
- Do not know all the specific technological limitations on the Chinese aero industry
Canards torque arm have gaps. While moving those canards, radar waves will eventually get deflected by a large curved object that's.
Misaligned Canard, not conforming to frontal planner form.
Tell me are they aligned to wing root? Untrue.
The underwing bulged control surface actuator (nice round shape). (see below)
Counterbalancing stealth using radio-spectrum-airfoil & its limitations to the fighter jet:
So you've reduced backscatter through sawtooth edge treatment, done some paint job so specular reflections are covered and surface em waves covered?
What about Mie scattering for which newer radars such as this one is developed for, exploiting's the resonance regions of a stealth jet?
"That why I said this model is not tested for real world conditions".
Infact, the emphasis on radio-spectrum-airfoils (stealth) for fighters and for reduced drag - can force:
- Internal weapon bays / carriage restrictions. (Check for J20)
- Reduced space for internal fuel. (Check for J20)
- Which force increased aircraft size / or the use of external tanks. (Check J20)
- All bad for "the element of surprise" Stealth's hallmark feature.
Draw down to Mie Scattering:
"As the radar wavelength grows, non-specular reflections intensify and specular reflections widen. For flat surfaces, traveling waves grow with the square of wavelength and their angle of peak backscatter rises with the square root of wavelength: at 1/10th the surface length, it is over 15 deg. Tip diffractions and edge waves from facets viewed diagonally also grow with the square of wavelength. Specular reflections from flat surfaces decrease with the square of the wavelength, but widen proportionally: at 1/10th the surface length, they are almost 6 deg. wide. In addition, most RAM types become less effective as wavelength increases. For all these reasons, stealth specialists say the RCS of a stealth aircraft grows approximately with the square of wavelength from the lowest frequency for which it was designed, and that above-mentioned effects become significant when the wavelength reaches about 1/10th the size of a structure.
this regime —where the wavelength is between one and 1/10th the size of the structure—is known as the “resonance region.” Maximum RCS is often reached when the wavelength reaches the approximate size of the structure. "
Counter to your point no 2:
Never said, he called it a bomber. I was putting the point to why its LO rather than VLO.So where do you hear him calling it a bomber?
@MiG-29SMT posted a J20 with a pylon, with supersonic fuel EDT.
Now why do we do that on a "so called stealth jet"? If this huge jet cannot take ATGMs in its IWB, than it can surely carry on its pylons, a subsonic ATGMs. Since munitions are still developing, is highly likely, that it would carry a subsonic cruise missile, supersonic cruise missile or ATGM payloads.
"With its LO (stealthy) characteristics, it will eventually become a swing-role supersonic LO bomber fighter jet confining to the mission parameters of Mirage 2000 like fighter jet".
Counter to your Point no. 3: FC-31 and its shenanigan's.
FC-31 is now being funded partially funded by PLAAF (unofficially). Its happening, as much as you deny it, its literally on the table. To provide weight here are some questions, Why the marketing? Why on this dudes desk? With a PLAAF army logo?
Now you would say, so what its a model, to which my argument is simply, why put models just for show, because you are marketing it already to the PLAAF.
Ok you are still not convinced then, a full gray paint job with a pitot tube would suffice and its a fairly recent one, I am pretty sure you have it seen already
FC31 is VLO and would enter in both for airforce and navy roles, much like the F35B and F35C variants.
I can clearly see that this jet was designed for VLO, rear end not much because of the engine technology which is understandable. In fact, it has taken lesson from J20 and improved upon it. All it requires damn good engines.
1. J20 is LO jet, a "stealthy jet" for what SU57 is also mocked for by western BS media.
"However, SU57 is clearly a thought out technology, that's why I say "Russians had very different mission parameters stated for it, to counter F35 and F22".
2. J20 isn't a stealth jet (VLO), not much data is available for its EW capabilities which also adds to the stealthy characteristics of a jet. Much of the armaments are still in development, and we might see ATGMs for it.
"Hence its role for stealth is unclear".
3. J20 Mission parameter as you clearly stated,
"Do confine to regimes such as maneuverability, Long range endurance, air superiority fighter jet."
4. I would add my speculations as well,
"Swing-role, fighter bomber".