No, it is not, kolokol is relevant specially when you claimed the J-20 was chosen because it proved to be superior over the SAC design, it is just conviniently for you to claim is irrelevant.
Of course kolokol is irrelevant. That is because kolokol is a post-stall maneuver, not a controlled flight at high angle of attack. It is that simple.
Also, J-20 being chosen over SAC's triplane design is not a claim. It is a well known fact.
Is it irrelevant?
Only if the J-20 either uses TVC nozzles or HMS and higly offbored missiles.
Thrust vectoring is used on aircraft as those aircraft are aerodynamically compromised by the use of tailplane. Specifically, those aircraft lose control effectiveness because the tailplane stalls at high angle of attack. The J-20 uses a canard layout, which doesn't encounter such a problem. Thus, the J-20 has no need for thrust vectoring. No Eurofighter operator bothered to employ thrust vectoring for the same reason.
Today`s S-400 SAM use a radar system similar to what Su-35S or T-50 use, a mixture of 3 or 5 radars, a main radar on the radome and 2 or 4 auxilairy radars on the wings, and the range of interception is in the range of 400km for football target size RCS flying supersonic in the case of S-400 SAMs
see
Irrelevant. S-400 isn't an aircraft.
another detail UHF radars can track targets and modern ones claim to be effective for tracking stealth fighters
see
Irrelevant, as UHF radars are not aircraft and have nothing to do with sustained flight at high angle of attack. Your use of the fallacy of
isn't going to negate what the J-20 is designed to do.
plus another detail stealth aircraft use bowtie of pacman radar signature management
, which means the stealth aircraft still reflects radar waves that can be detected by radars possitioned at 30 deg from the Stealth aircraft main longitudinal axis.
According to Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter's head of future requirements capture, the F-35's frontal-aspect stealth can be defeated by stationing interceptors and AWACS at a 25º to 30º angle to the F-35's most likely approach path to a target.
Again irrelevant, since radar signature has nothing to do with an aircraft's aerodynamic capability. With or without stealth, the J-20 has better performance than its competitor which shown controllability at 65° AoA. To achieve similar feats, aircraft such as Su-35 and PAKFA must rely on thrust vectoring, which highlights the compromise resulted from the use of tailplane.
In fact J-20 needs to be stealth just because today`s radars have become so effective even to detect VLO like J-20
Right now, you are so desperate in putting down the J-20 without facts that you cannot form a coherent statement. J-20 has stealth not because radars are good at picking up stealth, but because radars are
not good at picking up stealth. LMAO! What's more, the J-20 has stealth because stealth is the best way to defeat stealth.
In a situation where a stealth aircraft meets an unstealthy opponent, the former can achieve first detection and first shot. Countering that basically come down to two approaches. The first, used by J-20, is to use stealth and treat the first stealth aircraft with its own medicine. This takes the abilities of first detection and first shot away from the first stealth aircraft. The second, is to use other means of detecting the stealth aircraft, such as UHF radar. Since the second method can only detect and doesn't have the resolution to shoot, it does not equalize the playing field. So at the end of the day, an unstealty aircraft with UHF radar is still inferior to a stealth aircraft.
