Deino said:LowObservable said:Has anyone seen the right-hand bay door open?
Because you'd put both side bays on an FSD aircraft, or a Y-aircraft, but it would be a waste of money on an X-plane.
Yeppp ...
"In conclusion, this study has established through Physical Optics simulation across nine frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype, which would preclude its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design."
LowObservable said:The study is pretty noncontroversial. If you read it, it doesn't say ZOMG PANIC CHINESE STEALTH IS HERE. It concludes that with some fixes and RAM the aircraft could be stealthy to a reasonable level (which is not hard to guess, given its resemblance to an F-22) but that we don't know enough about material and detail technology to say when it will be so.
Kryptid said:The J-20 certainly could be stealthy, but we know that stealth is determined by more than just what you can see in a photograph. As Dan Raymer said in his autobiography, there are certain specifics of stealth design that you only learn to do right through experience (he mentions antennas, formation lights, and doors). That was one area where North American Rockwell fell behind in when compared to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman during the ATF design phase, for example.
Triton said:Uploaded by houshanghai on 06/26/2011
Abraham Gubler said:Well these images should be the death knell of the J-20 is a bomber argument. Basically a clone of the F-22’s weapons bay arrangement with the same limited depth in the main bays. Two IR lock on before launch dogfight missiles and six long range missiles. The canard configuration and large door opening to the top of the side bays will ruin their seeker head field of view in a dogfight. Looks like design by committee.
quellish said:It would be a really interesting way to carry an ASBM, or YJ-12.
LowObservable said:If the side missiles have an LOBL role, which they do, since there's not much point in having them otherwise, they'll be on a trapeze that swings out and forward and the door-canard masking in the front hemisphere will be limited.
LowObservable said:As for weapons, I don't know that we ever expected two Mk84s. I don't see anything that would preclude this design from having a deeper section to the belly bays inboard and between the ducts. But is that necessary? I'd be thinking ARMs, not necessarily carrier-sinkers.
LowObservable said:I'd be thinking ARMs, not necessarily carrier-sinkers.
Gridlock said:But would the planning committee of the PLA?
Abraham Gubler said:..has many features that only make sense for air to air. One of which is the bomb bay is not positioned and sized to carry large and heavy air to ground stores.
Blitzo said:A new missile (for me at least) that has appeared on a J-11 (it looks like it's in PLANAF grey?)
....
It was reported that 607 Institute has been developing a new activing radar homing AAM comparable to American AIM-120D (dubbed PL-15?). Recent photos showed a new type of missile being tested onboard a J-11B fighter. Compared to PL-12 of the same class, the missile features stablizing fins and tailfins with reduced wingspans, suggesting its design is optimized for internal carriage by the 4th generation fighter such as J-20. PL-1X may also features improved guidance system (including duplex datalink and new active/passive dual mode seeker with enhanced ECCM capability) as well as a bigger motor which gives it a longer range (~100km?). There was a speculation that PL-1X is actually a new anti-radiation AGM comparable to American HARM, but this has yet to be confirmed.
http://cnair.top81.cn/missile2.htm#PL-1X
China successfully develops new-generation air-to-air missile:Thursday, May 19, 2011: China has achieved what some foreign experts once thought was impossible it has independently developed a next-generation air-to-air missile without assistance from foreign specialists or borrowed technology.
Designed by Fan Huitao, the deputy director of the Air-to-Air Missile Research Institute under the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, the missile, known as the "Key Model," successfully passed the designed type approval test and achieved an excellent result, with all seven missiles hitting their targets.
Its successful development indicates that China already fully possesses the ability to independently develop internationally-advanced air-to-air missiles. It is a historic breakthrough in China's air-to-air missile development and has met the Chinese Air Force's requirement for the model to be designed, produced, delivered and made combat effective within one year. The new missile offers the military and country another trump card.
The Key Model is an international-advanced AAM model. It is a secret weapon for gaining air superiority. It plays a crucial role in reinforcing the power of national defense and strengthening the influence of China.
However, it is very hard to develop and only a few developed countries around the world possess such a capability. The complicated system of the model and the high-grade, high-precision and advanced technologies needed to develop it has never been seen in the development of other models.
Foreign military experts once believed that employing foreign specialists as chief designers was the only way for China to succeed. Even some Chinese experts believed that the success rate of developing this kind of missile was not high when relying only on the current technical conditions of China. This was because China did not have any documents to refer to and could not use a shortcut.
The successful completion of the missile is the culmination of Fan Huitao's career in the aviation industry. After Fan graduated from Northwestern Poly-technical University with a major in aircraft engines in April 1986, he went to Luoyang and devoted himself to the field of air-to-air missiles.
In 2000, Fan took over as the chief model designer and began to lead a group in researching China's new-generation air-to-air missile.
ELP said:It only has to be stealthy enough to reduce the PK of the AMRAAM to that of a Vietnam-era Sparrow. Once the glass-jaw of the great-white hope is minimized; you will have problems.
I presume this study basically provides an "upper bound" of sorts for how stealthy the J-20 can be?quellish said:LowObservable said:The study is pretty noncontroversial. If you read it, it doesn't say ZOMG PANIC CHINESE STEALTH IS HERE. It concludes that with some fixes and RAM the aircraft could be stealthy to a reasonable level (which is not hard to guess, given its resemblance to an F-22) but that we don't know enough about material and detail technology to say when it will be so.
I have some issues with their conclusions based on the methods used. Pay careful attention to the sections "Aircraft Model Features and Limitations" and "What the Simulation Does Not Demonstrate".
Optical methods are fine for simulating specular reflections. For the lower end of low (i.e. NATO A-E, 10-~3000mhz) and higher end of high (NATO I and up, 8000mhz+), other methods are more appropriate. Optical methods are fast, but are only useful for high level configuration analysis (which this is) because dominant reflectors in these ranges can be missed.
In all bands, however, model fidelity and accuracy is a factor.
These things are pointed out in those two sections (as well as other items). The simulation itself is not flawed, but it does not support all of the conclusions. In particular, the statement:
"the design would present very good potential for robust Very Low Observable performance in the S-band and above"
(S-band being NATO E/F band, 2000-4000mhz. Pretty chart here: http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/wa04.en.html ). Because this is a simulation using optical methods with a simple configuration model, accuracy in these frequencies would be low. Shaping is the dominant factor determining RCS (even when the vehicle is coated with Sham-wow), the simple model does not include shaping features which would drive reflection in these bands, and the simulation method is not able model reflection in these bands well.
That said, part of the conclusion is supported by the capabilities of the simulation:
"If the production J-20 retains the axisymmetric nozzles and smoothly area ruled sides, the aircraft could at best deliver robust Very Low Observable performance in the nose aspect angular sector."
Yup, that's about right (for specific bands). For very high frequencies, and very low frequencies, that may not be true.