J20 Stealth Fighter

[Instr]

The J-20's RCS is too great to avoid detection by any decent long range radar. It's a mistake to automatically assume that the J-20 has 5th generation level RCS reduction, because it's doubtful that China currently possesses the technology to hide the radar, canopy and other high RCS features of the J-20 from enemy radar, which also explains why they kept the canards in spite of them being detrimental (an order of magnitude) for RCS.

Any stealth aircraft can be detected by any other radar-equipped aircraft at a particular range, or if the stealth aircraft is spoiling its own stealth via Luneberg lenses for exercises or to let others know they're there.

The reports that the Su-30MKI detected the J-20 at several km is consonant with what we know about stealth technology; a decent X-band radar can detect the F-22 at its optimum angle and azimuth (RCS on stealth craft vary tremendously based on angle and azimuth), yes, but you'd expect it at around 40 km or so with state of the air technology. Tracking should be around 20 km.

But of course, this is an Indian forum and assuming that the InA can defeat the weak Chinese is par for course here.

 

[johnq]

India’s Rafale fighter jets to be inducted today — Here’s how it stacks up against Chinese J-20 | Business Insider India

The Indian Air Force (IAF) will formally induct the newly acquired Rafale fighter jets today at its Ambala air base.Here’s a comparison between China’s J-20 and India’s Rafale fighter jetsRafale’s engine is better in terms of reliability, longevity and maintainability, according to reports...

www.businessinsider.in

However, Retired Air Marshal R Nambiar, who tested the Rafale fighter jets for India, said, “Rafale is far superior to the J-20, the Chengdu fighter of China. Even though it’s believed to be a 5th generation fighter, it is probably at best a 3.5 generation aircraft. It’s got a third-generation engine as we have in the Sukhoi.”

The J-20 RCS is too great to avoid detection by any decent long range radar even from the front due to its exposed radar/radome, canopy, canards and other features detrimental for RCS, which is why it was detected and tracked by SU-30MKI radar at long ranges in the Himalayas. The Rafale's Spectra ECM gives it the edge in terms of radar avoidance, while the Rafale's avionics and weapons are far superior to the J-20's.

 

[Instr]

@MiG-29SMT

Two other points about the Rafale. It has two key weaknesses. First, the Rafale is underengined; the French insisted that the Eurofighter use Snecma M-88s, which were underpowered compared to the EJ200s the Eurofighter ended up using. This impacts its high-speed performance; if you compare the Rafale to the Eurofighter, the Rafale is more capable as a strike jet as well as when it comes to low-speed performance, but the Eurofighter flies high and fast while the Rafale prefers to be slow.

Second, the Rafale, unlike the Eurofighter, is designed with a very small radar to avoid impacting its aerodynamics. It is a heavier (and more capable) fighter than the F-16, but it has roughly a F-16-sized radar. The Eurofighter, in contrast, is designed with an F-18-sized radar, which is significantly more capable.

Back to the context of the J-20, the J-20 is underengined, but so's the Rafale, so we have to wonder which underengined aircraft is underengined more. The J-20's AESA, likewise, should be around 67% more capable than the Rafale's AESA, but around 43% more capable than the Eurofighter's AESA. To an extent, this helps explain why the InAF picked the Rafale instead of the Eurofighter; the Eurofighter's strengths are the J-20's strengths, but the J-20 is significantly better than the Eurofighter at those strengths (BVR, fly fast, detect first, shoot first). The Rafale, on the other hand, has strengths in other areas (-20 dBsm minimum RCS is fairly good, low-speed agility isn't something the J-20 is designed for) that can allow it to exceed the J-20 in some flight regimes and arguably in some realistic conditions (using terrain to hide from the J-20's radar, for instance, although vs the all-aspect and LOAL PL-10 ASR it'd likely be a mutual kill, and the Chinese EODAS might pick it up anyways).

 

[MiG-29SMT]

We were expecting the WS-15 to be ready sooner. The J-20's development is somewhat crippled without a WS-15; the basic design concept is very flexible and extensible, but it can't be modified until the WS-15 is ready.



The J-20 does have one small advantage over the Rafale, and that's the fact it's designed to use body lift, which the Rafale isn't. The J-20's Canard Lerx Body Lift Delta formula supposedly delivers 80% more lift at high-AOA than a simple delta, but for body lift to kick in, it'd require high AoA.

As far as for the Rafale supercruising, no it doesn't. The Su-35 supercruises, the Eurofighter supercruises, but none of these supercruises are the same as the F-22 / Su-57 supercruising because the Rafale, Su-35, and Eurofighter all lack internal weapons carriage. The supercruising is only useful when the aircraft is returning from a combat mission, in order to reduce sortie rate. Supercruising is a function of both airframe drag (which means external carriage can't be done) as well as engine dry thrust at altitude.


As far as catching up to the Rafale, the Rafale is maxed out around Mach 1.8 (airframe and inlet design limitations). It's intended as a 4th generation medium omnirole fighter, not an air superiority craft. The J-20 purportedly can reach Mach 2.5 despite limitations due to inlet and airframe design. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the J-20 maxed out at Mach 1.8 as well due to the DSI design; we know that DSI is designed for a specific speed and above that speed the DSI inlet begins to choke.

===

One major feature the J-20 has that the Rafale lacks is the body lift design. The wing area of the J-20 is enormous, at around 72-78 m^2 (depending on whether canards are adding or subtracting lift). That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the J-20 couldn't outperform the Rafale in terms of sustained turn rates at low speeds (the high AoA stuff I've talked about is more useful for ITR, and the J-20 is designed for relatively clipped wings to minimize its parasitic drag at transonic speeds).

I do not understand your concept Rafale has no body lift, to start J-20 is fat and only the chines generate some vortices at high AoA, and the upper fuselage is a bit rounded than the flatter fuselage underneath, but that is not a bodylift creator as you want to present.

Rafale first has its wings farther from the jet nozzles and has wing fuselage blending

The Rafale does supercruise, the swiss evaluation of Rafale said it.

It is fitted with twin Safran M88-2 engines each capable of providing up to 50 kilonewtons (11,000 pounds-force) of dry thrust and 75 kN (17,000 pounds-force) with afterburners. The M88 enables the Rafale to supercruise while carrying four missiles and one drop tank.

Rafale adds stealth to Indian Air Force | ADU MEDIA

Indian Air Force has added both strength and stealth to itself by adding Rafale fighter jets into its inventory.

www.aviation-defence-universe.com

 

[johnq]

Rafale adds stealth to Indian Air Force | ADU MEDIA

Indian Air Force has added both strength and stealth to itself by adding Rafale fighter jets into its inventory.

www.aviation-defence-universe.com

The French made Indian fighter will be an envy of all the airforces with its MICA, Scalp and Meteor missiles made by French missile major MBDA. Thales provides a RBE2 AESA radar, the Spectra electronic warfare system, optronics, the communication navigation and identification system (CNI), the majority of the cockpit display systems, power generation systems and a logistics support component.
It is fitted with twin Safran M88-2 engines each capable of providing up to 50 kilonewtons (11,000 pounds-force) of dry thrust and 75 kN (17,000 pounds-force) with afterburners. The M88 enables the Rafale to supercruise while carrying four missiles and one drop tank.

The J-20 will have a very difficult time with its underpowered engines at high altitudes, where the air is thinner (less lift) and the engines produce even less thrust. The J-20's RCS is too great to avoid detection due to exposed radar/radome, canopy, canards and other features detrimental for RCS, which is why it was tracked by SU-30MKI radar from hundreds of kilometers away over the Himalayas. The avionics of j-20 are also primitive as they are copied from 2 decade old, downgraded Russian avionics, which is why PLAAF continues to import SU-35 from Russia. The same holds true for J-20's outdated weapons' sensors, which will be jammed by Rafale's integrated Spectra ECM. The Rafale's avionics are 2 generations ahead of the J-20. The Spectra ECM will also shield Rafale from being tracked by radar.

 

[Instr]

@MiG-29SMT

Yes, you are correct, the Rafale is capable of Mach 1.2 supercruise (which seems to be false supercruise; i.e, it requires afterburners to get past the Mach barrier but can sustain its speed afterwards) with 4 AAM + 1 drop tank.

===

As for body lift, check this out:

Lifting body - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The entire notion of a lifting body is BASED on ugly looking aircraft that are plain "fat". Getting an aircraft to do body lift; well, there's a reason body lift came into popularity with stealth aircraft and internal bays. The aircraft end up looking ugly and fat because of internal bays, but the ugliness and fatness can be made to turn the fuselage into an airfoil to generate lift itself.

 

[johnq]

Dassault reveals conformal tanks

www.flightglobal.com

During the Trident d'Or exercise in May, the Rafale operated with the navy's NorthropGrumman E-2C Hawkeye, evaluating the interoperability between the airborne early warning system and Rafale's Thales RBE2 radar and Spectra system. Performance evaluations included take-offs and landings as well as flight at Mach 1.4 with two 1,250 litre underwing fuel tanks.

The Rafale will exceed these parameters with CFTs, as mach 1.4 supercruise is with underwing fuel tanks. The J-20 is woefully underpowered, which will be even worse when operating from high altitudes. The J-20 RCS is too great to avoid detection even from the front due to exposed radar/radome, canopy, canards and other features detrimental for RCS, which is why it was tracked by SU-30MKI radar from hundreds of kilometers away over the Himalayas, according to official IAF reports. The avionics of j-20 (including radar, ECM, optronics) are very primitive since they are copied from 2 decade old, severely downgraded Russian avionics on the Su-35, which is why PLAAF continues to import SU-35 from Russia. The same is true for J-20's 2 decades old/outdated weapons' sensors, which will be jammed by Rafale's integrated Spectra ECM. The Rafale's avionics are far more advanced than the J-20. The Spectra ECM makes the Rafale effectively stealthy by preventing Rafale from being tracked by radar.

 

[Instr]

For Rafale, using 188 nm per drop tank, the combat radius without drop tanks comes out to around 800 km. This is roughly 40% of the J-20's combat radius on internal fuel, or only 25% fuel is needed.

Under these conditions, with 1000 kg of munitions, the Rafale comes out to about 1.12 T/W and 300 kg / m^2 wing loading.

The J-20, on 25% fuel, comes out to about 300 kg / m^2 wing loading and 1.24 T/W. The Eurofighter, likewise, comes out to 292 kg/m^2 wing loading and 1.22 T/W on 60% fuel.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

@MiG-29SMT

Yes, you are correct, the Rafale is capable of Mach 1.2 supercruise (which seems to be false supercruise; i.e, it requires afterburners to get past the Mach barrier but can sustain its speed afterwards) with 4 AAM + 1 drop tank.

===

As for body lift, check this out:

Lifting body - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The entire notion of a lifting body is BASED on ugly looking aircraft that are plain "fat". Getting an aircraft to do body lift; well, there's a reason body lift came into popularity with stealth aircraft and internal bays. The aircraft end up looking ugly and fat because of internal bays, but the ugliness and fatness can be made to turn the fuselage into an airfoil to generate lift itself.

Did you know that those lifting bodies are gliders?

A fleet of lifting bodies flown at NASA's Flight Research Center (FRC) at Edwards Air Force Base from 1963 to l975 demonstrated the ability of pilots to maneuver and safely land a wingless vehicle. These lifting bodies were designed to validate the concept of flying a wingless vehicle back to Earth from space and landing it like an aircraft at a pre-determined site.

NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: Lifting Bodies

Lifting Bodies demonstrated the ability of pilots to maneuver and safely land a wingless vehicle.

www.nasa.gov

Come on do not try to tease me.

Aircraft generate fuselage lift for example with Chines at high AoA such as F-35 or F-5, J-20 or Su-47, and some aircraft give some camber to the fuselage like F-16 forebody or IAI Lavi and in the F-16 the LEX increases that lift.


But Rafale has a lot of lift from the wing-fuselage blending.

Now tell me as JohnQ says how with AL-31 engines J-20 will supercruise? if Su-27 does not do it and it is even lighter?

 

[no smoking]

China's J-20 fighter aircraft will stop using Russian engine - Defence View

Chinese social media have been talking about replacing the engine currently installed on the new generation of J-20 fighters for several days. will replace it with a modernized motor of its own production. “The Chinese WS-10C engine, a modified version of the WS-10 engine, is not inferior to the...

defenceview.in

“The Chinese WS-10C engine, a modified version of the WS-10 engine, is not inferior to the Russian AL-31F engine.” This was reported to the South China Morning Post by a source in the Chinese military circles.

“China cannot rely on a Russian engine because Russia has asked China to buy more Su-35 fighters in exchange for deals with AL-31F engines,” an insider said



WS-10 engine used in the Chinese J-10 and J-11 fighters
Online photos posted online indicate China has produced a new batch of second-generation J-20 prototypes for flight testing, according to a report posted on the War Industry Black Technology WeChat account by Shenzhen-based Quantum Defense Cloud, a military company.
A military insider confirmed that the new J-20 prototype was powered by two WS-10C engines, but said the modified engine remained a temporary choice for the J-20.

“The use of the WS-10C to replace Russian engines was due to the fact that the WS-15 did not pass final evaluation in 2019,” said an insider.
“The Air Force is unhappy with the final results, requiring engine technicians to rework the engine until it meets all standards, such as the F119 engine used in the American F-22 Raptor”.

But these production J-20s will continue to be powered by Russian engines because, according to an insider, the WS-10C will take at least a year to test.

Twin-seat variation & domestic engine-equipped version of J-20 make official appearances - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

In a separate video, released on Tuesday by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force for its pilot recruitment program, Chinese media outlets identified a J-20 that is equipped with domestically developed WS-10C engines instead of imported Russian engines.

Sorry, I read the both links provided and I couldn't the sentence you highlighted, is that your conclusion, or I simply missed it somewhere?

 

[no smoking]

The Indian article for starters quotes the South China Morning
while the second source is the CCP mouth piece the Global times.

That is the problem, as a Chinese, I can't get the same conclusion as you that Chinese will continue to use AL-31 (probably except J-15) from these Chinese newspaper.

Conclusion WS-10B inferior to Al-31 because China confirms J-20 uses Al-31, ucav has no Al-31

I just can't follow your logic.
J-20 used AL-31, this is a fact. The latest fact is that since 2018, Chinese has been producing all kinds of new jets (J-10, J-11x, J-16 and J-20) with WS-10x instead of AL-31. Isn't that telling us that PLA believes WS-10 is at least matching AL-31 exported to them?

 

[MiG-29SMT]

That is the problem, as a Chinese, I can't get the same conclusion as you that Chinese will continue to use AL-31 (probably except J-15) from these Chinese newspaper.



I just can't follow your logic.
J-20 used AL-31, this is a fact. The latest fact is that since 2018, Chinese has been producing all kinds of new jets (J-10, J-11x, J-16 and J-20) with WS-10x instead of AL-31. Isn't that telling us that PLA believes WS-10 is at least matching AL-31 exported to them?

i will tell why your logic is easy to destroy.


China started using WS-10 on J-11/Su-27 clones, why? a twin engine is safer if there is an engine failing one can still fly the aircraft back, so J-10 was using Al-31



Why J-20 will use Al-31? answer is easy thrust, the Chinese Su-27 can have higher risk of a lower thrust engine, but J-10 needs a reliable engine.

J-20 is heavier than Su-27/J-11 aircraft so you need thrust.

Of course you deny those facts because in Chinese lead forums people are allowed to think like that.

Here fortunately this is an Indian lead Forum so having a different opinion is not censored.

J-20 is very expensive, it should be at least two times more than a Su-27 clone considering it is paying research and development costs.

So it needs a reliable engine with more thrust to avoid accidents .

W S-10C might be more reliable even than earlier Al-31s that Russia sold to China, perhaps even have higher thrust.


Since they do not say its thrust, well everything is especulation.

Is it a ploy to get a deal from Russia? perhaps because Russia is not willing to sell engines unless Su-35 are bought.

If Russia buys more Su-35s means two things one Russia is selling 117 and J-20 might be using it or Al-31s are upgraded versions like Al-31M3 that is equal to 117.


Time will tell.

How good it is only combat will prove it.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

@MiG-29SMT

Yes, you are correct, the Rafale is capable of Mach 1.2 supercruise (which seems to be false supercruise; i.e, it requires afterburners to get past the Mach barrier but can sustain its speed afterwards) with 4 AAM + 1 drop tank.

===

As for body lift, check this out:

Lifting body - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The entire notion of a lifting body is BASED on ugly looking aircraft that are plain "fat". Getting an aircraft to do body lift; well, there's a reason body lift came into popularity with stealth aircraft and internal bays. The aircraft end up looking ugly and fat because of internal bays, but the ugliness and fatness can be made to turn the fuselage into an airfoil to generate lift itself.

There various factors gives influence in determining the fuselage shapes, such as the payload, cockpit, wing and tail placements or in manner up and down loading the payload for a cargo aircraft. These factors may come up the fuselage is no longer as symmetrical fuselage but represent as a cambered fuselage. As results the lift coefficient as well as its pitching moment coefficient is no longer equal to zero as the angle of attack goes to zero. Basically the manner how to determine the fuselage aerodynamics characteristics for cambered fuselage can be done in similar way as in the case of symmetrical fuselage by simply replacing the angle of attack α term with (α-αL=0), where αL=0 represent the angle of attack at zero lift. The present work use a similar manner in determining the zero lift angle of attack as it had been used in DATCOM software. To investigate the effect of camber on the aerodynamics characteristic fuselage, the present work use a fuselage model with a circular cross section where the location of center of the circle placed along the fuselage’s camber line. The fuselage’s camber line defined according to the definition of camber line of NACA airfoils. Aerodynamics analysis on over various fuselage models indicate that the maximum camber line thickness and their position give a significant influent to the fuselage aerodynamics characteristics.

The Aerodynamics Analysis on Cambered Fuselage Model | Scientific.Net

There various factors gives influence in determining the fuselage shapes, such as the payload, cockpit, wing and tail placements or in manner up and down loading the payload for a cargo aircraft. These factors may come up the fuselage is no longer as symmetrical fuselage but represent as a...

www.scientific.net

Many aircraft have fuselage cambered shapes

Very likely there is fuselage chamber in J-20 plus lift generated by its Chines

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19760026045/downloads/19760026045.pdf

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Did you know that those lifting bodies are gliders?

A fleet of lifting bodies flown at NASA's Flight Research Center (FRC) at Edwards Air Force Base from 1963 to l975 demonstrated the ability of pilots to maneuver and safely land a wingless vehicle. These lifting bodies were designed to validate the concept of flying a wingless vehicle back to Earth from space and landing it like an aircraft at a pre-determined site.

View attachment 73620

NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: Lifting Bodies

Lifting Bodies demonstrated the ability of pilots to maneuver and safely land a wingless vehicle.

www.nasa.gov

Come on do not try to tease me.

Aircraft generate fuselage lift for example with Chines at high AoA such as F-35 or F-5, J-20 or Su-47, and some aircraft give some camber to the fuselage like F-16 forebody or IAI Lavi and in the F-16 the LEX increases that lift.


But Rafale has a lot of lift from the wing-fuselage blending.

Now tell me as JohnQ says how with AL-31 engines J-20 will supercruise? if Su-27 does not do it and it is even lighter?

The blended wing-body, or lifting body concept, was achieved through a smooth fairing between the wing and fuselage rather than the conventional angular intersection. This blending provided lift at high angles of attack. The thickening of the wing at the fuselage joint actually resulted in a weight savings of about 250 pounds.

The blending also results in a high volumetric efficiency. A conventional wing-body would require a foot-longer fuselage to get the same volume, adding to the structural weight.

In addition, blending made up for the cola-bottle effect of transonic drag area-rule by removing volume around the center of gravity right in the area where it is desirable to have volume for fuel, payload, and the main landing gear. Wind tunnel tests verified that wing-body blending did indeed provide increased lift with increasing angle of attack.

<title>F-16 Design Origins | Code One Magazine</title>

The F-16 began as a concept for a low-cost, high-performance fighter and was a consequence of the marginal air-to-air combat effectiveness experienced by US fighters in Vietnam against small fighters such as the Russian-designed and built MiG-17 and MiG-2

www.codeonemagazine.com

Fuselage wing blending on F-16

J-20 also has wing fuselage blending

But its blending is not as good as on F-22 or Su-57

the main reason is on F-22, the tailbooms and tailplanes makes for better wing fuselage blending and its flat 2D nozzles increase the smooth blending of the fuselage with its tailplanes

If you look at the radome of J-20 you can see the rounded upper almost circular shape of the upper part of the radome cross sections and forebody that have a shallower less rounded lower part giving some fuselage camber to the J-20 forebody and upper body

However Su-57 shows better fuselage wing blending and fuselage camber than J-20

 

[no smoking]

i will tell why your logic is easy to destroy.


China started using WS-10 on J-11/Su-27 clones, why? a twin engine is safer if there is an engine failing one can still fly the aircraft back, so J-10 was using Al-31

Agree totally.

Why J-20 will use Al-31? answer is easy thrust, the Chinese Su-27 can have higher risk of a lower thrust engine, but J-10 needs a reliable engine.

J-20 is heavier than Su-27/J-11 aircraft so you need thrust.

Sorry, I am lost here. You are suggesting J-20 needs an engine with higher thrust, I agree.
But the fact is Chinese is using a inferior engine (according to you) to replace AL-31, which will downgrade its performance if it is inferior.

So, my understanding about your logic is as: because you believe WS-10B is inferior to AL-31F, so installation of WS-10B on J-20 is only temporary, J-20 will continue to use AL-31F, so WS-10B is inferior to AL-31F.

Of course you deny those facts because in Chinese lead forums people are allowed to think like that.
Here fortunately this is an Indian lead Forum so having a different opinion is not censored.

What is the fact? You claim that "WS-10B is inferior to AL-31" or "J-20 will continue to use AL-31"? I simply ask you to provide your source to support that. So far I haven't seen it.

The thing you provide, which you put in bold, is that "But these production J-20s will continue to be powered by Russian engines because, according to an insider, the WS-10C will take at least a year to test."

On the other hand, Chinese member Shiphone provided the picture of J-20 with WS-10B, which was in service already.

Can you please provide something to support your claim.

J-20 is very expensive, it should be at least two times more than a Su-27 clone considering it is paying research and development costs.

So it needs a reliable engine with more thrust to avoid accidents .

W S-10C might be more reliable even than earlier Al-31s that Russia sold to China, perhaps even have higher thrust.

Since they do not say its thrust, well everything is especulation.

Is it a ploy to get a deal from Russia? perhaps because Russia is not willing to sell engines unless Su-35 are bought.

If Russia buys more Su-35s means two things one Russia is selling 117 and J-20 might be using it or Al-31s are upgraded versions like Al-31M3 that is equal to 117.

Time will tell.

How good it is only combat will prove it.

Nobody asked you about WS-10C.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Agree totally.

WS-10B is not the main engine powering J-20, it is AL-31 and WS-10C will definitively the engine to replace it, perhaps because it has TVC nozzles, more reliability and same or more thrust.

WS-10B is not used as Al-31.

One J-20 with WS-10B does not mean it is the main engine and Russia according to the article will not sell engines without purchases of more Su-35

 

[rockdog]

View attachment 73783

However Su-57 shows better fuselage wing blending and fuselage camber than J-20

The intake is exposed to radar, which is quite bad for stealth. All F22, F35, J20 don't use such desgin.

This is how F22 deal with it.

Check out those details:

After 10 years, it realize it and did some compensation:

 

[MiG-29SMT]

The intake is exposed to radar, which is quite bad for stealth. All F22, F35, J20 don't use such desgin.

View attachment 73784

View attachment 73785

This is how F22 deal with it.

View attachment 73786

Check out those details:

View attachment 73787


View attachment 73788

After 10 years, it realize it and did some compensation:

View attachment 73789

View attachment 73790

typical Chinese forum claim, an ignorant member claims something, other people just repeat the same none sense.


Are you aware there are radar blockers?

Stealth has two ways to shield the inlet duct, one in S ducts, that allow for side internal weapons bays, the other is inlet duct Radar blockers that allow for shorter, lighter and cheaper inlet ducts.

radar blocker F-18E

inlet duct radar blocker X-32


While the engine fan blades seem to be visible on the Boeing concept–a no-no in stealth design–Boeing program manager Frank Statkus said the blades are hidden by a blocker, which is a new approach to stealth. The X-32 meets all the Pentagon’s requirements for stealth, Statkus said.

The Three Fighters | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Fighter modernization has been in the deep freeze for years. Now, three fighters are bidding for money

www.airforcemag.com

 

[MiG-29SMT]

The intake is exposed to radar, which is quite bad for stealth. All F22, F35, J20 don't use such desgin.

View attachment 73784

View attachment 73785

This is how F22 deal with it.

View attachment 73786

Check out those details:

View attachment 73787


View attachment 73788

After 10 years, it realize it and did some compensation:

View attachment 73789

View attachment 73790

Russia has managed to lower the radar signature of its first stealth jet, the Su-57, by adding a new grille to the air intakes.

Photographs of the modified jet with coaxial radial grating were shared by the Russian media today.

The grating is made of radar absorbing material and is placed in the air intakes of the Su-57. In comparison, Lockheed Martin has used an S-channel design for the intakes of the F-22 aircraft to reduce the direct frontal transmission of radar by the engine compressor blades.

Su-57 aircraft's new air intake grille (via local media)

Russia’s Su-57 Jet is ‘More Stealthy’ with New Air Intake Grille

Russia has managed to lower the radar signature of its first stealth jet, the Su-57, by adding a new grille to the air intakes. Photographs of the modified jet with coaxial radial grating were shared by the Russian media today. The grating is made of radar absorbing material and is placed in the...

www.defenseworld.net

 

[rockdog]

typical Chinese forum claim, an ignorant member claims something, other people just repeat the same none sense.


Are you aware there are radar blockers?

Stealth has two ways to shield the inlet duct, one in S ducts, that allow for side internal weapons bays, the other is inlet duct Radar blockers that allow for shorter, lighter and cheaper inlet ducts.

View attachment 73795

radar blocker F-18E

View attachment 73796

inlet duct radar blocker X-32


While the engine fan blades seem to be visible on the Boeing concept–a no-no in stealth design–Boeing program manager Frank Statkus said the blades are hidden by a blocker, which is a new approach to stealth. The X-32 meets all the Pentagon’s requirements for stealth, Statkus said.

The Three Fighters | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Fighter modernization has been in the deep freeze for years. Now, three fighters are bidding for money

www.airforcemag.com

1. They are the compensation sfor the no-good design toward stealth.
Neither original F18 and F16 are designed for stealth capability, that's why they are testing this kind of intake. What i m surprised is that Su57 as an 5G still need such compensation after 10 yrs.

2. I wanna hear your POV that, why India quit the Su57 project after invested massively on it. If it's really has such powerful desgin and stealth capability.