J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Botnet said:

So it trades RCS for maneuverability? Will that make it a better at dogfighting and bvr engagements than the F-35?

Click to expand...

which universe you live in makes you believe F35 is good at dogfight?

Couple things:

1. Knock it off y'all
2. If the US didn't see the J-20s as a credible 5th generation threat, they wouldn't have allocated expensive F-35 airframes to the aggressor squadrons to replicate PLA tactics in large force exercises as well as to act as OPFOR for Weapons School students (the USAF's version of TOPGUN) - there are literally F-35s sitting on the flight line at Nellis Air Force Base painted in PLA colors, that's how seriously DoD and USAF see the threat the Mighty Dragon presents both in BVR stealth engagements as well as in the visual merge dogfight scenario.
3. Despite the numerous financial and political speed bumps as well as publicity gaffs the F-35 program has gone through, it is still a highly capable fighter. Nobody at the CMC and the respective Theater Commanders would downplay the capabilities the F-35 brings to a fight... So stop downplaying the threat the F-35 presents, and more importantly don't allow nationalism/patriotism to cloud one's ability to analyze facts with a level head.
4. There are 643+ pages on this very topic thread where the correlation between RCS and canards has been thoroughly and comprehensively discussed + debated by users ranging from amateur PLA watchers/enthusiasts to actual subject matter experts. Might I refer you to the search function to satisfy your curiosity to your heart's content.

siegecrossbow said:

Are the canards blotted out here? Don't know what there is to hide really.

Click to expand...

I don't think they are trying to hide anything but rather removed canards in this test. It looks like they are trying to get the figures of contributions of each individual elements (LERX, Cannard, lifting body) according to figure 4 in 一种小展弦比高升力飞机的气动布局研究

taxiya said:

I don't think they are trying to hide anything but rather removed canards in this test. It looks like they are trying to get the figures of contributions of each individual elements (LERX, Cannard, lifting body) according to figure 4 in 一种小展弦比高升力飞机的气动布局研究
View attachment 103371

Click to expand...

You clearly need to know the impact of the canards on the efficiency of the wings anyway, test with and without canard is probably mandatory.

It was reported in the past that the canards on J-10 and J-20 were composite materials, at least most of them were. Their dielectric properties might not be close to metal at all.

kurutoga said:

It was reported in the past that the canards on J-10 and J-20 were composite materials, at least most of them were. Their dielectric properties might not be close to metal at all.

Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s the case. But there are several treatments done:

1) Application of radar absorbing material to the leading and retailing edge of the canard.
2) application of sawtooth pattern to the trailing edge
3) cropping the trailing tip of the canard.

A paper by CAC compared RCS between cropped canard and horizontal slab and found no appreciable difference in the + or - 20 degrees range.

kurutoga said:

It was reported in the past that the canards on J-10 and J-20 were composite materials, at least most of them were. Their dielectric properties might not be close to metal at all.

Click to expand...

You need to clarify what kind of negative impact of low dielectric property you are talking about.

For RCS reduction, composite reflects radio waves much less than metal which is a good property. It is worse than metal in a storm as the static charge accumulated on it has no where to go and must be well treated.

If you are talking about the static charge on composite, then F-35 should have much more to worry than J-20.

taxiya said:

You need to clarify what kind of negative impact of low dielectric property you are talking about.

For RCS reduction, composite reflects radio waves much less than metal which is a good property. It is worse than metal in a storm as the static charge accumulated on it has no where to go and must be well treated.

If you are talking about the static charge on composite, then F-35 should have much more to worry than J-20.

Click to expand...

I thought we are in the RCS discussion.

siegecrossbow said:

I don’t think that’s the case. But there are several treatments done:

1) Application of radar absorbing material to the leading and retailing edge of the canard.
2) application of sawtooth pattern to the trailing edge
3) cropping the trailing tip of the canard.

A paper by CAC compared RCS between cropped canard and horizontal slab and found no appreciable difference in the + or - 20 degrees range.

Click to expand...

There were reports like this. In fact the same was reported when J-10 canard designer retired, that the J-10 canards weren't metal.


CFRP will reflect radar waves in certain directions, but its properties are very different from metals(or other conductive materials), and can be manipulated to minimize reflection. It is not going to absorb all radar waves, so other RAM patches are necessary. However in the evaluation model someone showed here a few page back, one of the major assumptions is canards are metal.

I was referring to the report below. I have to say I appreciate the author's efforts in RCS evaluation in general and the amount of work done was impressive.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/j-20-5th-generation-fighter-vii.8678/post-920291

However when discussing the particular issue of canard's impact on RCS of J-20 by using the simulated results in the report, we need to remember its assumptions are violated, therefore, not a good source on the topic of canard's impact on RCS of J-20.

However, in this simulation, all external surface including the canopy will be treated as perfect electrical conductor (meaning they will reflect radio wave like metal)

Click to expand...

crash8pilot said:

Couple things:

1. Knock it off y'all
2. If the US didn't see the J-20s as a credible 5th generation threat, they wouldn't have allocated expensive F-35 airframes to the aggressor squadrons to replicate PLA tactics in large force exercises as well as to act as OPFOR for Weapons School students (the USAF's version of TOPGUN) - there are literally F-35s sitting on the flight line at Nellis Air Force Base painted in PLA colors, that's how seriously DoD and USAF see the threat the Mighty Dragon presents both in BVR stealth engagements as well as in the visual merge dogfight scenario.
3. Despite the numerous financial and political speed bumps as well as publicity gaffs the F-35 program has gone through, it is still a highly capable fighter. Nobody at the CMC and the respective Theater Commanders would downplay the capabilities the F-35 brings to a fight... So stop downplaying the threat the F-35 presents, and more importantly don't allow nationalism/patriotism to cloud one's ability to analyze facts with a level head.
4. There are 643+ pages on this very topic thread where the correlation between RCS and canards has been thoroughly and comprehensively discussed + debated by users ranging from amateur PLA watchers/enthusiasts to actual subject matter experts. Might I refer you to the search function to satisfy your curiosity to your heart's content.

Click to expand...

No one is downplaying the F35 threat, but all their customers had either cut orders in half, or begun working on their own VLO projects, or showing dissatisfaction with the buggy system, softwares, high cost of maintenances (i.e korea, australia )