 |
| This jet is alleged to have the serial number 2011, 1st jet of the 1st limited production series. |
Hopefully the US Navy is all over getting the F/A-XX going. Hopefully.
Monday, January 06, 2014
Photo: Modified J-20 via Alert 5
Hopefully the US Navy is all over getting the F/A-XX going. Hopefully.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
I have my doubts not because chinese technical limitations but because a delta canard configuration is not the best combination for highy slanted tail
ReplyDeleteAnd why is that?
DeleteMy mistake as pictures seemed to suggest change in tail fin angles ,but from what i found on other websites. they are refining stealth by matching angles on both canards(now match wing planform)and vertical tails(tips).
Deletehttp://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?110612-J-20-Black-Eagle-Part-6/page25
J-20 is wrought with radar and IR returns. So Im pretty sure they are trying to do something about it. Even PAK-FA has an RCS about 5-20 times the size of an F-22 (which is still small). So we can expect them we can expect them to be working on these things for quite a while.
ReplyDeleteActually China's adversaries' intelligence agencies already did a RCS analysis on the J-20 and they found a 0.001 m2 class frontal aspect RCS, clearly superior to both PAK-FA and the J-20.
DeleteThese estimates are from intelligence agencies, not from independent "experts'
So the J-20 is superior than the J-20? Damn, now that's impressive.
DeleteAlso I would love a link to those studies.
Unknown
DeleteWell, I was meant to say the F-35.
I'm not sure which one Keith was referring to, but there are many such studies done already. Here's one from Air Power Australia: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html#mozTocId546744
DeleteMany forumrites underestimate (IMO) the strategic impact of the J-20 in the APAC region. They often cite the lack of suitable domestic engine, which limits production and puts a damper on the maneuverability of the aircraft, as the primary reason.
I disagree with them. In its current stage, using advanced Russian import engines they will be able to field at least 3~4 of these things but most likely can get to squadron size if they so wished. The only real test left for the J-20 is live weapons firing. Once lets done, the J-20 is IOC.
Combine this with the LD-10 anti-radiation missile and the PL-12 BVRAAM and one can begin to grasp the tactical advantage China will have in any fight and hence alters the strategic balance in the APAC towards China. Since it will be the only country besides the US to be able to perform deep penetration against enemy SAM sites, Radar installations, and AWACs. All the while remaining not only stealth but also supersonic. They don't need hundreds of J-20s, they don't even need a squadron. They just need a 3~4 of these birds and it's enough to blind and paralyze enemy C&C during the first stage of any fight in the region (including the US). By which stage, even the PLAAF antique J-7/J-8 which they have in the thousands will be able to own the 4.5 gen F-15/F-16s in the area, since they will be operating with AWACs and BVRAAMs.
Huh, Anyone besides APA? They've done some good work in the past, but recently they've more or less gone off the deep end after they realized that Australia wasn't going to get the F-22.
DeleteBesides, Slowman clearly stated that
"These estimates are from intelligence agencies, not from independent experts"
And last time I checked, APA wasn't an intelligence agency.
Sorry I missed that. Intelligence research on such subjects aren't going to be open source. I think APA does a good job of analyzing things. Deeper and broader than many other sources on a variety of subjects. Anyway, I think Dr. Kopp did a good job here. You can try and read the actual analysis part on how they did the tests and what assumptions they made. To me, the methods tells me more about the quality of the research than the brand name. Here's the direct link to the section: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html#mozTocId546744
DeleteJust for comparison:
ReplyDelete-- if you take the USAF's statements that the F-35 has a signature like a metal golf ball and the F-22 like a metal marble, you get RCS of about .00143 and .00018 respectively
-- if we say that J-20/PAK-FA = 20 * F-22 (Keith's worst case for PAK-FA), we'd be looking at about .0036
-- best case, if you're China, estimate of .001 would give performance pretty close to the F-35, slightly better
Here's what that would mean relative to a Mig-29/F-16A type plane (about 5m^2):
-- F-22 is only detected at about 8% if the range of the Mig29/F16A, a 92% reduction in detection range
-- F-35 is detected at about 13% of the range, an 87% reduction
-- J20/PAKFA, worst case, is detected at about 16% of the range, an 84% reduction
So we see a couple things here:
-- relative to a conventional design, even the 'worst case' J20/PAKFA is going to give performance very similar to the F-35
-- again relative to a conventional design, the difference between the 'worst case' J20/PAKFA and the F-22 is noticeable, and tactically significant, but not that big (only an additional 8% in reduced detection range)
-- for air to air purposes, once the radar detection range falls below the range at which you can be acquired by IRST, additional reductions in RCS aren't nearly as useful
---- the SU-35 IRST is quoted at around a 50km detection range vs. a head on, non-after burning target. Expect the PAKFA to do better than that and EODASS is probably better still. F-22 has no IRST and who knows for the J-20, though it seems foolhardy to expect less performance than the SU-35 level.
Once you hit fairly high levels of stealth, things like mission planning, how low the "L" in your LPI radar is, your ESM suite, and how good your IRST are probably more important than the last 10x or 20x reduction in RCS.