J-20

File: J-20A LRIP - 27.9.16 - 1.jpg (25KB, 707x1080px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 707x1080px

Spotters say that they have never seen them training this hard before.

Probably preparing for an airshow.

File: J-20A LRIP - 27.9.16 - 2 xs.jpg (467KB, 1500x780px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1500x780px

After all, Zhuhai Airshow is in November.

File: J-20A LRIP 3x - 28.9.16 - 2 part.jpg (63KB, 767x346px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 767x346px

Three J-20 LRIP birds spotted. Two in yellow primer, one painted in PLAAF colors.

File: 163345pnxgfiad9sizrans.jpg (101KB, 2784x984px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 2784x984px

Fuzzy phone-cam.

Impressive

Chinese Research and Development is truly the peak of human technology. American F-35 has a lot of problems and the Russian T-50 does not exist and yet there is nothing bad that can be said about the Chinese J-20.

File: J-20 into the sunset.jpg (307KB, 2048x1381px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 2048x1381px

>>31488281
China's programme does seem to move faster than Russia's.

And there were no major groundings and delays noticed during its test regimen, unlike the F-35.

From the first flight to LRIP, it took them just barely 6 years. Impressive indeed.

>>31488555
>And there were no major groundings and delays noticed during its test regimen, unlike the F-35.

Thats because the Chinese does not disclose problems with their programs.

The simple fact that its using interm engines and no Helmet Mounted Display means they did indeed have problems.

>From the first flight to LRIP, it took them just barely 6 years. Impressive indeed.

Pretty average. It took the F-35 6 years from X-35 to F-35 LRIP.

>>31488591
If there were problems, they seem to be adressed very quickly.
Interim engines and incomplete subsystems or not, these are issues that can be sorted out once the fighter is in operational service.

After all, the J-10 also experienced the same development, with the first series J-10A not having the capability for IFR and launching active-radar missiles, until a few years after when these capabilities were added to the succeeding batches and retroactively refitted on the older birds.
Now, the J-10A's production is over and over 100 J-10B and the slightly modified C-variant have been introduced, being the definite variant for the J-10 family.

I bet the J-20A that will be introduced soon will also lack a few subsystems for some years. The "A" variant always has "only" the basic capabilities the PLAAF wants, without the "extra capabilities".

If the J-20A will be delivered as it is, it will still be able to complete most missions it is designed for.

>>31488555
That's because in China you get shot for fucking up.

>>31488152
I like how it looks, but the engines are still derived from old Russian shit, no?

>>31488164
>Spotters say that they have never seen them training this hard before.

It is rumored that Big Boss Xi just visited Chengdu a week or so ago, urging them to work faster.

File: 2016-09-02-Le-J-20-effectue-ses-essais-en-vol-au-Tibet-11.jpg (547KB, 1260x2672px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1260x2672px

>>31488690
Engines are uprated AL-31F variants with 145kn. Just as powerful as the T-50's interim engines, just without TVC.

China and Russia both do not report any engine sales since quite some years now. It looks like China either has a silent agreement with the Russians, or they indeed got a licence production for that engine.

>>31488664
>If there were problems, they seem to be adressed very quickly.

Well there is no reason to say they were addressed quickly, because we can only go off of what we see, not what is actually going on, due to the Chinese not really releasing anything about the air frame, much less issues. They also been caught in a few lies regarding the J-10's flight testing.

Its also not "if", they DID have problems.

Furthermore, it seems to me you are saying the J-20 is being rushed as an incomplete bird hardware wise, which is an extremely subpar way to do things, and is meant you are left with a fleet of low capability birds.

>The "A" variant always has "only" the basic capabilities the PLAAF wants, without the "extra capabilities".

A HMD is a pretty major claimed capability that is completely absent.

Furthermore, the LRIP J-20 seems to have lost alot of its stealth shaping, especially in the frontal canards.

>>31488738
So the J-20 is shaping up to be merely a PAK-FA that works?

File: 456745385368542.jpg (580KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1600x1062px

>>31488738
>They also been caught in a few lies regarding the J-10's flight testing.

Such as?

>A HMD is a pretty major claimed capability that is completely absent.

Actually no. The PLAAF wanted a stealth fighter to rival the F-22. And they got one. The F-22 has no HMD as well, and not even the EOTS that the J-20 has (and which can be used even without HMD). HMDs will be retrofitted once they are ready.

>Furthermore, the LRIP J-20 seems to have lost alot of its stealth shaping, especially in the frontal canards.

I see nothing different from the prototypes.

File: j20-2017e.jpg (630KB, 1600x1054px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 1600x1054px

>>31488756
Prototype J-20 from the same angle related.

>>31488752

Perhaps, with more emphasis on stealth and less on pure maneuverability.

There is also alot, ALOT, of unanswered questions due to secrecy.

Like a good clear frontal pic of the intakes, to see if they managed a proper s duct.

If any data fusion is present (again, lack of HMD points to this, but is not definitive. It does state it wont be as good as, say, the F-35)

the total internal hard points (test birds had only 4 internal hard points for BVR missiles)

Any external hard points.

The stated capabilities of RWR.

The stated capabilities of EWAR, if applicable.

File: 1336999743_67185.jpg (374KB, 1872x1069px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1872x1069px

>>31488766
Early prototype

>>31488777
>S-Ducts

It has DSI. Why would it need S-ducts. Radar-wave reflections do not go around corners.

File: iTqnpVL.jpg (428KB, 3296x2472px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 3296x2472px

The LRIP J-20 has modified DSI with a different color. Maybe a thicker layer of RAM.

It will be interesting to see if the Chinese can start rivaling their Russian counterparts in making fighter planes.

File: frZH88r.jpg (130KB, 950x631px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 950x631px

As for the HMD, let's wait till Zhuhai Airshow. Last time, they have presented the J-31's projected HMD model.

This time, with the J-20 starring the show, they might show the J-20's.

File: nextgencockpit_05.jpg (71KB, 512x768px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 512x768px

>>31488824

File: GAUL1A8.jpg (204KB, 950x1430px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 950x1430px

>>31488831

File: 2JzQ9Es.jpg (250KB, 1600x1068px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1600x1068px

>>31488838

Hurry up and paint your damn planes already china

>>31488756
>Such as?

J-10 crashing during flight testing, really crashing alot in general, and again thats just what we know. China does not report crashes unless it lands on somebodys house.

>Actually no

Actually yes, it was a big deal on chinese media and forums.

>EOTS and HMD

Yes, you can put an EOTS readout on an LCD screen. The issue is DAS. How will the DAS work (if it is truly an F-35 equivalent) without an HMD? Without it, its just a IR MAW.

>HMDs will be retrofitted once they are ready.

You cant just "retrofit" an HMD. It requires alot of plane side hardware, and codeing, along with a fuckton of sensor fusion work.

>I see nothing different from the prototypes.

Close up's from the bottom show significant gaps in the frontal portions not found in the proto birds.

File: cUbdE.jpg (44KB, 500x345px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x345px

>>31488841
Though, cockpit wise, the J-20's is said to be pic related.

>>31488793

DSI does not completely cover the engine blades from all angles.

>>31488860
>J-10 crashing during flight testing, really crashing alot in general, and again thats just what we know. China does not report crashes unless it lands on somebodys house.

Proofs. J-10 never crashed during test flight. Later it crashed during combat training - and these were reported.

>Actually yes, it was a big deal on chinese media and forums.

Yes, and they are somehow representing the PLAAF. I understand.

>You cant just "retrofit" an HMD. It requires alot of plane side hardware, and codeing, along with a fuckton of sensor fusion work.

You can. The F-22 are projected to be upgraded with them as well, so that they can actually use their AIM-9X. The J-20 is already built in with that capability in mind.

>Close up's from the bottom show significant gaps in the frontal portions not found in the proto birds.

Because the Canards are angled in these pictures? Hell, you see the same on prototype pictures as well. Again, show comparissons.

File: cockpit-j-20_imagelarge.jpg (56KB, 550x366px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 550x366px

>>31488867

I thought it was this

>>31488896
They might have upgraded them. My picture was from 2007.
That new single-piece MFD cockpit was shown in 2012.

File: 420 harold.png (770KB, 680x576px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 680x576px

>>31488152
THE MANNED AIRCRAFT IS OBSOLETE

DRONES ARE THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE

>>31488860
It is very hard to claim that the J-20 crashed during test-flight, simply because Chengdu Airport is near a residential area and plane spotters photograph every J-20 prototype departing and arriving every time. And all protypes are accounted for.

Not claiming that they havent experienced problems. But crashes are unheard of, since the spotters still see all prototype birds (conveniently with 20XX numbers) being flown every day.

File: 7mnZ9O4.jpg (107KB, 950x683px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 950x683px

>>31488918
How about an unmanned J-31?

File: J-20_2101d.jpg (250KB, 1164x609px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1164x609px

>>31488891
>proofs

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/j-10/j-10.htm

Among others. Even the wiki states this.

>Yes, and they are somehow representing the PLAAF.

Well, again, no HMD means much less sensor fusion than the F-35 by default.

>The F-22 are projected to be upgraded with them as well, so that they can actually use their AIM-9X.

By 2020, if all things go well, and require significant plane hardware upgrades.

Also, the AIm-9x block II is coming in next year, you dont need an HMD for it.

>The J-20 is already built in with that capability in mind.

There is zero proof of this. In fact, by your own words, its not, the J-20A is incomplete. It will need to be retrofitted. Also it will need to lose the HUD.

>Because the Canards are angled in these pictures?

No, the actual gap between the canard and the body.

See pic related, Yes, its angled, but im not talking about the angle, you can clearly see a significant gap (with shadow, no less) between the body and the canard.

Looks sexy in yellow

File: 66378840jw1f811xv5f9ej20qo0zkq9t.jpg (140KB, 690x920px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 690x920px

>>31488948
CK-20 supersonic stealth UCAV.

kinda a single engine J-31.

>>31488934

J-10, friend, not J-20.

Also, the "spotters" are all bought and paid for by the PRC. They even go so far as to heavily censor their photos, so who knows if they 'lose' photos that would give bad publicity.

There's really not a whole lot of point of talking about Chinese military equipment. There's almost no trustworthy information about it. With most Western equipment you can look up reports and oversight. Hell you can look up DOT&E reports on shitloads of stuff that will lay out the exact problems different programs are facing right now.

>>31489010
>Hell you can look up DOT&E reports

Speaking of which, new DOT&E coming up soonish, its about that time.

I disagree though, there is alot of information you can garner just by looking at the bird, and whatnot. However, you are correct that the Chinese don't release shit about it, which makes any claims about capabilities kinda dubious.

>>31488948
>>31488956
I like it.

Now make it 10% larger and put a "coffin" cockpit in there so I can personally fly it.

>>31488690
That's what I was gonna say. You can see some of F-22 in the body (no doubt from the stolen tech), but they can't seem to have figured out the engine. I imagine this plane won't be as stealthy as the burger jets.

>>31488666
Satan confirms.
H A I L

File: 231851goett2yanmecutjj.jpg (395KB, 1600x1881px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1600x1881px

>>31488950
>proofs

seems to be very old and unconfirmed rumors coming from unreliable and indian sources, dating back to 2003. And the wiki only states that it "could have been possibly" crashed.

As it turns out, the most reliable Chinese aviation blog, who is working together with Andreas Rupprecht, the well-known German Sino-Aviation expert and author of several standard-works and references about the PLAAF never mentioned it once.

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/fighters-ii.html
>After a 15-month delay, the first prototype (01/1001) was rolled out in June 1997. It made its maiden flight on March 23, 1998, two years behind the schedule. 6 prototypes (serial numbers 1002-1009) were built undergoing various static and flight tests at CAC in Chengdu and at the CFTE in Yanliang. Subsequently 3 more prototypes were built (1013-1016) as the project was moving into the pre-production phase while PLAAF remained fully committed. The flight test of J-10 was completed by the end of 2003 and the serial production started earlier that year. Approximately two are being produced each month, depending on the supply of AL-31FN engine from Russia. A total of 300 have been planned.

>There is zero proof of this. In fact, by your own words, its not, the J-20A is incomplete. It will need to be retrofitted. Also it will need to lose the HUD.

There is no evidence that it needs to lose the HUD. The official model of the J-31's HMD has HUD in conjunction. And the J-20 has the openings for EODAS-like systems, just as the Chinese aviation industry has already presented their DAS-like hardware in airshows.

>No, the actual gap between the canard and the body.

Point me to the gap. There are none. Only a visual effect when the canards are angled and you see the hinge.

File: J-20 spotters in chengdu.jpg (447KB, 1028x1760px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1028x1760px

>>31488963
Chinese spotters self-censor so not to betray their country by violating OPSEC. believe it or not, Spotters are patriots and do not want to help Jane's, not to mention the CIA.

They arent paid or bought. I suggest you lose your North Korean-tier image of China and learn a bit more about how China actually works.

What is true is that the Chinese spotters around Chengdu have established themselves as a business model. Vendors and businessmen open up restaurants near the CAC test-site to cater to the spotters, offering spicy Sichuan noodles with best view on the airfield.

File: J-20_2101d.jpg (228KB, 1164x609px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1164x609px

>>31489593

>my source is better than your source

Wew laddy

> And the wiki only states that it "could have been possibly" crashed.

Yes, because at the time the internet was in its infancy in china, and the prevalence of digital cameras (cellphone and other) was far, far lower. All they have are "reports".

>There is no evidence that it needs to lose the HUD.

Otherwise you have a clusterfuck of the same information overplayed upon one another, but (obviously) not perfectly.

> And the J-20 has the openings for EODAS-like systems

See, again, there is no proof it is an EODAS system like system any more than an IRST opening is.

> just as the Chinese aviation industry has already presented their DAS-like hardware in airshows.

They called it DAS (which is a lockheed brand name), but then showed nothing DAS like. Furthermore, the F-22 has openings for its MAW, but that does not mean it has the capabilities of a DAS system, which relies upon a HMD.

No HMD means no DAS system.

>Point me to the gap

You might be blind.

>>31488281
>>31488555
oh look china shills its been awhile

File: 24734743171_422940a0ec_o.jpg (286KB, 2000x1389px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 2000x1389px

>>31489659
>my source is better than your source
It is.

I put Deino/Rupprecht's words over any Russian or Indian source, who have a clear agenda.

>You might be blind.

Visual effect due to the angling of the canards. Where do you see the gap in pic related?

>>31489653
>Chinese spotters self-censor so not to betray their country by violating OPSEC. believe it or not, Spotters are patriots and do not want to help Jane's, not to mention the CIA.

See, this arguement would make sense, but then how would they know what to censor, how much, and where?

They are being directed by the PLA, and you are a fool to think otherwise. "muh patriots" would not post anything, while enthusiasts would post everything.

Weak as fuck, nonsensical argument, and it really makes me think that you are here shilling to even suggest such a thing.

>>31489690
>Where do you see the gap in pic related?

In the very place i circled. Do you need me to circle it again. The gap shadow is still there.

Hell, in the rear you can see actual sky though the canard.

>muh infallible source

It might hold water if J-10s were not dropping out of the sky.

File: Type 055 Cruiser bow module.jpg (291KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1024x768px

>>31489693
>See, this arguement would make sense, but then how would they know what to censor, how much, and where?


Forum rules.

Visit lt.cjdby.net and post an uncensored picture of a warship module. You will get warned and your thread deleted until you self-censor it. Pic related is acceptable.

>They are being directed by the PLA, and you are a fool to think otherwise. "muh patriots" would not post anything, while enthusiasts would post everything.

The PLA can care less about the spotters. Forum mods are doing their jobs.

>Weak as fuck, nonsensical argument, and it really makes me think that you are here shilling to even suggest such a thing.

You are pretty ignorant about how things in China work. I suggest you go there one day.

File: Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg (826KB, 2736x1822px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 2736x1822px

>>31489722

>Hell, in the rear you can see actual sky though the canard.

Yes, but where is tha gap?

You can also see the sky and shadows here in pic.

>It might hold water if J-10s were not dropping out of the sky.

As said, the J-10A and B crashed during excercises and combat training. Noone is hiding that.

>>31489732
>Forum rules.

So there is only ONE forum that deals with this shit? Who is stopping another forum from popping up?

What you mean by "forum rules" you actually mean the PLA policing the internet, and the forum does not want to get fucked out of existence.

>muh forums

See above.

>You are pretty ignorant about how things in China work

No, i have a very firm grasp upon how things work.

>>31489757
>Yes, but where is tha gap?

At where the canard connects with the body.

>You can also see the sky and shadows here in pic.

Excellent post. Notice how the control surface interface with the wings and tail are perfectly smooth and blended.

>Noone is hiding that.

Yet, 0 fell out of the sky during testing, even though there are reports of it.

Riiiiight.

File: KTV-05.jpg (95KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 720x405px

>>31489761
>So there is only ONE forum that deals with this shit? Who is stopping another forum from popping up?

Every forum has those rules.

Do that in fyjs, dingsheng, haohan etc. Chances are, not the mods will blast you, but fellow users.
One guy was even called a traitor once, because he helped a South Korean TV-crew find a good point to capture images of the new carrier.
The only uncensored pictures came from that South Korean TV report. Pic related.

>>31489807
>Every forum has those rules.

So every forum has the SAME rules?

Anon, you are naive as hell. Are you saying the PLA does not police its internet?

>>31489784
>At where the canard connects with the body.

...there is literally no gab.

>Excellent post. Notice how the control surface interface with the wings and tail are perfectly smooth and blended.

If you say so, then your definition about "gaps" are severely inconsistent. Or you have to zoom in more.
I see lots of gaps there. Literally more than on the J-20 pics you posted.

>Yet, 0 fell out of the sky during testing, even though there are reports of it.

Unconfirmed reports from Indian and Russian sources, both of which have agenda on their own.
I'll take my German sources, thank you.

>>31489653
>spicy Sichuan noodles
I had those once.
I don't understand how anyone can stand spice to that degree.

>>31489807
>One guy was even called a traitor once, because he helped a South Korean TV-crew find a good point to capture images of the new carrier.

But anon, you just said the vantage points are well known, with businesses popping up.

Why would anyone be called anything?

It seems like the Chinese government does not want things getting out, and either runs these forums or controls them. Chinese internet police are well known.

>>31489828
>PLA policing the Internet

Again, you show your ignorance.

Which army would police the internet? China has a ministry for that.
And self-censorship is much more prevalent than actual censorship.

And yes, every forum has the same OPSEC rules.

back when there was MP.net, you were banned if you are a service member posting a non-censored picture of a submarine's screw.

>>31488281
What kind of nonsense post is this? If china had good RnD why can't they develop an engine that isn't dog shit?

We don't know what problems the J-20 has or does not have because China is a closed system. They don't have disclose any issues whatsoever.

The F-35 has 10 countries that ordered it, all democracys. That means everything fucking thing has to be disclosed.

File: J-20 gap.png (162KB, 933x535px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 933x535px

>>31489834
>...there is literally no gab.

Made it easy for you, also notice another flaw.

>If you say so, then your definition about "gaps" are severely inconsistent.

No, not really.

>I see lots of gaps there. Literally more than on the J-20 pics you posted.

You see a line where the control surface actuates. In the canard there is an actual gap.

>Unconfirmed reports from Indian and Russian sources, both of which have agenda on their own.

That happen to match up with post launch reality of the J-10.

Ill take what my own eyes see, thank you.

>>31489848
>But anon, you just said the vantage points are well known, with businesses popping up.

Yes. But the Korean TV crew couldnt be bothered with self-censorship. Hence that guy who brought them there was a traitor in their eyes.

File: 31.jpg (1MB, 3000x1857px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1857px

So are there more news on the J-31?
It seems as though the PLAAF is putting everything behind the J-20 and neglecting Shenyang's bird.
You really gotta feel sorry for it.

>>31489850
>China has a ministry for that.

They do indeed anon. Thanks for making my point.

>And self-censorship is much more prevalent than actual censorship.

No anon, its not self censorship if the Chinese government is actively policing content.

>And yes, every forum has the same OPSEC rules.

Thats odd, right here there is no OPSEC rules.

>back when there was MP.net, you were banned if you are a service member posting a non-censored picture of a submarine's screw.

And you wonder why there is no more MP.net.

>>31489862
>. But the Korean TV crew couldn't be bothered with self-censorship.

Why would they?

> Hence that guy who brought them there was a traitor in their eyes.

No, traitor in the Chinese government eyes. Enthusiasts dont care anon, the fact that its out in public is enough.

Also, what the FUCK makes you think the CIA is not there either? These spots are clearly well known.

File: 163735k3cmhpn3vpl8pttm.jpg (411KB, 722x1000px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 722x1000px

>>31489860
All those photos show the canards having some form of angle due to the landing approach that they are being photographed at. The canards are perfectly blended with the fusalage during in-flight maneuverings. Pic related.

>>31489911
Again, not showing the bottom so this picture is meaningless.

The angle of the canard would have zero effect on the canard/body control interface.

Furthermore, due to the intake curvature, it LOOKS like the front of the canard might not match at perfect center.

>>31488950
>Also, the AIm-9x block II is coming in next year, you dont need an HMD for it.
For every HOBS AAM it's better to have HMD than not.

>>31489911
The only reason they sacrificed a smaller RCS to have canards is because the engines are too shitty to handle a high AoA without the canards.

You better believe that if this thing goes into a high AoA, it's RCS skyrockets.

>>31489933
>For every HOBS AAM it's better to have HMD than not.

You dont need a HMD just a HMCS.

File: 132730wnnievu21rp05g30.jpg (115KB, 893x715px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 893x715px

>>31489886
>No anon, its not self censorship if the Chinese government is actively policing content.

Sure. And this is why ban-worthy pictures like these are allowed:

These images were not deleted by the Forum, but the guy who took them was a technician in CAC and lost his job, though.

Members in the forums wanted it deleted, though. But in the end, it wasnt.

>Thats odd, right here there is no OPSEC rules.

Because you are posting in the asshole of the internet.

File: clipped canards 10-20 GHz X-band Ku-band RCS -30 dbsqm F-22 level stealth.jpg (158KB, 789x1010px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 789x1010px

>>31489935
If it needs to perform high AoA maneuvers, stealth is not important anymore since you are in a dogfight already.

At BVR, you hardly need AoA. Also, a small irregularity is hardly an RCS trap. The canards have up to -30 dbsqm.

>>31489954
>Sure. And this is why ban-worthy pictures like these are allowed

Well once its posted its clearly too fucking late anon.

The issue here is that its NOT self censorship, its censorship that oddly occurs at the forum level, and on ALL .cn forums. Its clear who is behind the rules anon.

Again, the "helping the CIA" argument is bullshit, because these spotting points are well known and the CIA can just fucking go there and take their own pictures. The issue is image, which the Chinese government clearly tries to control.

>Because you are posting in the asshole of the internet.

Well, so are you, after all.

>>31489986

How the canards interact with the body does, you cant just take the RCS of the canards in a vaccum.

If the front angle deviates immensly from the body, its a MAJOR problem. If, from the bottom, there is a gap (and there is, at least on the LRIP birds) its a problem.

>Chink shills argue with themselves
Shoo, shoo, or I will report you to your superiors.

>>31489986
Right, but it still increases the RCS even in level flight.

Once again showing that the plane is an underpowered dog. China will never sell it to a country that will expose it's flaws or benefits, so they can just keep lying about it's performance numbers much like the Soviet Union did.

>>31489690
dude how can you not see the gaps are you not detailed oriented or do you need some specs for reading

>>31488711
No TVC is quite a major downside though.
I'm sure the chinks can manage to build it though, even when it's only 2D.

>>31489653
This is a level of naivety that I have rarely seen.
You don't think there is one opportunist that chinaman that would take a bribe and hand over some good pictures ? You know how many billions Americans can save when they have to speculate less about Chinese capabilities ?

File: witness em.jpg (532KB, 1368x1500px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1368x1500px

>>31488555
easier to move faster when all the work you do is plagarised
t. undergrad student
>>31488666

>>31490051
Why is it odd that all Chinese military forums have similiar rules? After all, the enthusiasts are basically the same as on every forum.

>The issue is image, which the Chinese government clearly tries to control.

Not really. You can see uncensored images during airshows, taken by western spotters. It is self-censorship by every single member of these military forums. It's not hard to understand.

And no matter what you say, there were no J-10 crashed, since every single prototype is accounted for. Same as with the J-20. Spotters have photographed every single prototype in regular intervals, with not a single one missing. If the PLA/Ministry of Censorship/etc. wanted to 'control' the narrative, they would first tell CAC to build their walls higher or move to the Gobi Desert or something, where no people are living. Deleting internet photos is pretty inefficient in terms of information control.


>>31490072
The RCS numbers are the canards interacting with the body. There is even a degree-angle noted on the X-axis of the graph. as it is now, even at 35 degree angle the canards have -50 dbsqm.

>>31490186

I see the same gaps as on the F-22.
Both planes have their control surfaces angled at some degree. This is basically fucking nothing.

>>31490314

Yes. And that guy who showed the Korean TV crew the new carrier was evidently paid money for it. Hence he is considered a traitor.

>>31490642
> After all, the enthusiasts are basically the same as on every forum.

No, not even close. Jesus, thats like saying /k/ is like arfcom. Fuck.

>taken by western spotters.

Well the Chinese government cant prosecute western spotters at public airshows, cant it?

>And no matter what you say, there were no J-10 crashed, since every single prototype is accounted for.

For the J-10? Laughable. Nobody public was keeping track of such things in ~'98

>. Deleting internet photos is pretty inefficient in terms of information control.

The Chinese government has deleted comments, photos, etc before.

>>31490642
The Chinese will fake tail numbers to cover up airframe loses. Don't be stupid.

>>31490642
>The RCS numbers are the canards interacting with the body.

No, its just the canards angle in relation to the radar source. No shit a flat plate has low RCS.

The issue is the plates interaction with the body, i.e the gaps.

>I see the same gaps as on the F-22.

No, you dont, its not the angle of the control surfaces, its gap in where the control surface interfaces with the body.

its getting to the point where you are being difficult on purpose it seems. Completely unwilling to see the truth.

I bet if the government showed you a black J-20, and said "this plane is red", you would argue that the plane was red till you were blue in the face.

>>31490728

>The Chinese government has deleted comments, photos, etc before.

Hell, the Chinese have prosecuted people for internet shit. Its hard to imagine, but free speech DOES NOT exist in china. Not even the neutered "free speech" that euros have.

>>31490728
>For the J-10? Laughable. Nobody public was keeping track of such things in ~'98

Kek. You know nothing of the Chinese internet.

The earliest internet forums about military watching came in 1995.

>>31490780
>No, you dont, its not the angle of the control surfaces, its gap in where the control surface interfaces with the body.

Yes, and I see the same on the F-22 as well.

We can do this forever. It seems that you are the dense one here.

>>31491202
>Kek. You know nothing of the Chinese internet.

Neither do you.

>The earliest internet forums about military watching came in 1995.

They hardly had a functioning net in 1995.

http://www.edu.cn/introduction_1378/20060323/t20060323_4285.shtml

Only in 96' did they start domestic websites.

Dont bullshit me.

>>31491223
>Yes, and I see the same on the F-22 as well.

No, anon, you don't, straight up.

>We can do this forever. It seems that you are the dense one here.

The irony of this statement is fucking palatable.

>>31491261
Go to the Chinese forums and see the earliest pictures of the J-10, shopped or not. Or even the rumors and discussions.

You are pretty ignorant desu. I doubt the use of discussing this matter with you any further.

>>31491270
If you are too nationalistic to see the similiarities, or dont want to learn anything new, you can kindly go away.

There's not use in trying to argue with someone who doesnt know anything about the matter.

File: 1m7lFAX.jpg (16KB, 548x262px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 548x262px

>>31488711

Spotters say that the engines sound much more silent than the other J-20 prototyes they have heard.

Maybe a new engine?

File: Chinese Business 1.jpg (91KB, 1200x351px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1200x351px

>>31489732
>You are pretty ignorant about how things in China work. I suggest you go there one day.
Relevant. Not this anon, but I worked there for two years and had very similar experiences.

File: J-10C 2-45.jpg (407KB, 3000x2002px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 3000x2002px

Besides the new J-20A yesterday there were also thre more J-10Cs spotted with serials 2-45 - 2-47, so that besiedes the prototypes we have now confirmed 55 J-10B (= batch 01) and now at least 47 J-10C (= batch 02) making 102 J-10B/C.

File: Chinese Business 2.jpg (117KB, 1200x470px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1200x470px

>>31491368

File: Chinese Business 3.jpg (108KB, 1200x440px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1200x440px

>>31491376

File: Chinese Business 4.jpg (113KB, 1200x511px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1200x511px

>>31491388
Anyone arguing that all "china military spotters" who make a living of this would completely self-censor and never sell to anyone ever is retarded. Completely, irredeemably, retarded. There is no more corrupt business environment on earth.

>>31491317
>I doubt the use of discussing this matter with you any further.

Being as how i completely blew you the fuck out with a .cn source, i would say that yes, there is no use in discussing it because its over.

Me chineese
Me play joke
Me go poopoo in your coke

File: Chinese Business 5.jpg (111KB, 1200x417px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1200x417px

>>31491398

File: Chinese Business 6.jpg (106KB, 1200x456px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1200x456px

>>31491408

>>31491368
>>31491376
>>31491388
>>31491398

You are too weak.

As expected of softy white guys who are accustomed to the babby-tier western world, where you dont have to deal with the brutal world of cut-throat business.

This is why Ingalls buys a Chinese dry-dock and not a Japanese or Korean one. Or even an American.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/09/15/why-is-the-navys-largest-shipbuilder-looking-for-a-subcontractor-in-china/


You have lost, white man.
Against the Chinese jew, you will never win.

>>31491329
>If you are too nationalistic to see the similiarities, or dont want to learn anything new, you can kindly go away.

Well right back at you friend. It seems you are blind when you want to be and seeing things that are not there when you are not.

File: Chinese Business 7.jpg (133KB, 1200x433px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1200x433px

>>31491420

>this whole thread

Only /k/ would bite such fucking obvious bait and keep arguing.

>>31491405
It would rather look like I BTFO you instead, since you havent refuted any of my original points.

>no proof for J-10 crash during testing
>no proof that J-20 suffered any accidents that would prolong its test flight regimen till now
>no proof that there is any RCS relevant redesign
>no proof that Chinese military spotters arent self-censoring

Looks like you lost.

Please go back and continue to buy our stuff, like our solar-panels, wind-power generators and military shipbuilding drydocks.

File: Chinese Business 8.jpg (84KB, 1002x489px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1002x489px

>>31491431

>>31491421
>You are too weak.
>As expected of softy white guys who are accustomed to the babby-tier western world, where you dont have to deal with the brutal world of cut-throat business.
Ah, yes. The famed "china just stronger at business" argument.

It will be especially hilarious as more and more business moves away from china into other markets as the current trends continue. Because without the retarded cheap prices in China, NO ONE IN THE WORLD wants to deal with China's business bullshit fuckery. No one.

>>31491420
And people wonder why trump has beef with china

File: Chinese Business 9.jpg (107KB, 1200x488px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1200x488px

>>31491450

File: Chinese Business 10.jpg (104KB, 1200x315px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1200x315px

>>31491458

>>31491421
>brutal world of cut-throat business.

by that you mean scammers?

>>31491421
If by business, you mean institutionalized fraud on a grand scale which subsidizes local government, sure. We totally just can't compete.

>>31491450
>It will be especially hilarious as more and more business moves away from china into other markets as the current trends continue. Because without the retarded cheap prices in China, NO ONE IN THE WORLD wants to deal with China's business bullshit fuckery. No one.

You already moved with your cheap shit to bangladesh and vietnam.

Turns out that they regularily either burn their factories and workers to death, or have power-shortages.

Anyway, looks like ever more people are dealing with China. Now, Samsung has imported Chinese batteries after their shit with their own batteries that are highly imflammable.

http://www.androidheadlines.com/2016/09/samsung-will-use-chinas-atl-batteries-galaxy-note-7.html

China has moved up the value chain and now deals with the big boys in the business.

>>31491470
If you are too weak, you will get scammed.

Just Darwin.

Oh wait, America has banned him!

>>31491421
>This is why Ingalls buys a Chinese dry-dock and not a Japanese or Korean one. Or even an American.

>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/09/15/why-is-the-navys-largest-shipbuilder-looking-for-a-subcontractor-in-china/


HAHAH OH WOW

America is finished.

>>31491496
>Now, Samsung has imported Chinese batteries
That's because, just like with Rare Earth mineral production, China is perfectly happy to completely assrape it's own local ecology, environment, drinking water and food sources so local businesses can make a buck. They then sell this cheaply, and the rest of the world buys because why not let the retards rape themselves, and let us not have to deal with the impacts to our own local climate? Shit, the rest of the world gets to sit on their own strategic reserves in the meantime on top of that.

Win for everyone. Everyone except the Chinese.

>>31491448
>It would rather look like I BTFO you instead

Ahh yes, with such gems as "The earliest internet forums about military watching came in 1995" when china did not have a domestic website at all till 96'!

>>31491496
>If you are too weak, you will get scammed.

>>Ask for something
>>Agree to do that something
>>dont do that something
>>HURR UR WEAK!

No, you are a scammer.

>>31491517
DUDE WTF I HATE AMERICA NOW

>>31491421

>AMERICA IS TOO WEAK TO DO BUSINESS WITH CHINA

>HERE IS A SOURCE SHOWING AMERICA DOING BUSINESS WITH CHINA

MURRICA BTFO!!!

>>31491496
>>31491531
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

https://news.vice.com/article/chinas-toxic-waste-problem-is-just-as-bad-as-its-notorious-air-pollution

https://news.vice.com/article/people-in-china-can-no-longer-watch-this-environmental-documentary

https://news.vice.com/article/the-air-in-nearly-every-big-city-in-the-developing-world-is-unhealthy-to-breathe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_UdqZdFr-w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwOBRH56Ic0

>>31491448
>>no proof that Chinese military spotters arent self-censoring

Uhhh, the argument you presented is "they are self censoring to be able to post on websites that are moderated by the Chinese government"...thats not self censoring.

>>31491496
>>31491517

Its to build a dry dock in America, which is essentially nigger tier work.

It wont ever happen, due to political reasons, but its not something crazy.

>>31491625
Jesus Christ, China. What the fuck.

>>31491625
>>31491745

China will RUN OUT OF FUCKING WATER in 15 years.

Jesus....CHRIST.

How the fuck will china grow larger if it wont even have basic human needs?

>>31491745
Its easy to make tons of stuff for cheap when you don't give a shit about working conditions or pollution.

>>31491771
I mean, I knew it was bad. I just didn't know it was LIKE THAT. I figured it was like late 1800s England, or 1900-1920s/1950's America, where a lot of bad shit was in the environment and a lot of bad shit was happening to basic public and environmental resources, but people would come to their senses before it really got apocalyptic.

I mean, is no one in China looking at sustainability or long term planning? Does no one wonder what all this does to their arable land or water supplies ten years down the road, much less 50?

>>31491467
That dude should have hired some chinese beauracrats or maybe some triads to help him do business safely in China.

It's naive to assume that everybody is trustworthy, particularly in third world countries. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Like the saying goes:
Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me.

>>31491826
Think of this era as an opportunity to buy cheap Chinese raw materials. When their labour market is dead from cancer, prices will go up.

>>31491833
>That dude should have hired some chinese beauracrats or maybe some triads to help him do business safely in China.
Even then you often get fucked. Company I was with was completely tied in with local government through "considerations" and "donations to the welfare of the local economy/people/whatever the fuck excuse was offered". As soon as one of the larger state-owned mills decided to fuck us, however, not a single phone call was returned.

There is no doing "business safely" in China. There's only different gauges they can ream your asshole out to and the whims of corrupt local government and fraud artists.

This changes once you get out of low to mid level supply side negotiations and into multi-national corporation negotiations, because they know if they fuck the big boys, the big boys are going to whip their dicks out and fuck them right back, and with a much bigger dick. No local government official or corrupt mill manager wants a call from the Central Chinese Communist Party offices asking why Wal-Mart is completely pulling out of a sector of the Chinese market.

But the complete lack of any enforcement or legal recourse makes it nearly impossible to form a basis of trust for smaller transactions there. God help those poor Chinese folks trying to break into the different markets and build their own businesses, because it's a bleak goddamn landscape over there for anyone who isn't king turd of his own local toilet.

>>31491625
>news.vice.com
>China Uncensored

Kek.

>>31491896
It sounds like doing business in Russia, you need protection (krysha) from some mafia kingpin to prevent getting cheated or worse.

I suppose organised violence and bribery of Government officials isn't really a valid option if your business is legit, uses US banks and gets audited every year.

>>31492073
Weak as fuck counter, anon.

>>31488951
All planes look sexy in primer.

>>31491684
Thisssssss

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/us-navy-yards-already-use-chinese-built-drydocks/

Just like railroads in the 1800s or t-shirts in the 90s... Why waste your human capital when someone else is willing to debase themselves for your buck?

I'm sure some MAGAiacs will argue we should take back this short-term work instead of focusing on better, high tech uses of our capital.

>>31492154
>counter

Nah, just laughing at someone actually taking those serious.

>>31492879
Yeah, fuck nasa and whatnot. Bunch of idiots.

>>31492879
>can't argue with the content
>better attack the source
>DAMAGE CONTROL ENGAGE

>>31492707
>Just like railroads in the 1800s or t-shirts in the 90s... Why waste your human capital when someone else is willing to debase themselves for your buck?

>I'm sure some MAGAiacs will argue we should take back this short-term work instead of focusing on better, high tech uses of our capital.

I don't think anyone should taking trade lessons from stupid Americans when they have the world's biggest trade deficit. Keep laughing when China owns USA.

>>31489850
shill

>>31488152
Good

>>31489663
>>31489855
t. Newfags

>>31489855
>If china had good RnD why can't they develop an engine that isn't dog shit?
It's because they don't have to. The engine is fine. It's like asking why haven't Americans developed an anti ship missile that isn't dog shit.

>>31488591
>It took the F-35 6 years from X-35 to F-35 LRIP.

Uhhhhhh no

>>31488738
Care to provide a source for these lies?

The Chinese military has been pretty much silent on the J-20.

Also, the Chinese civilian government is not the PLA.

Do you take what John Kerry says about the F-35 as 100% factual?

>>31488860
>J-10

How is this related to the J-20?

Of which there is no information on any having crashed.

>>31488963
>They even go so far as to heavily censor their photos,

Because if they don't, the Chinese intelligence groups will literally track them down and imprison them.

Do you think America was okay with people taking pictures of the prototype B-1's? We let out some pictures, but they were always censored.

>>31489659
>Wew laddy

Not an argument.

Your source is a wiki page with an Indian news article as the source, that literally states "possibly crashed" based upon a satellite photo.

>>31489693
>They are being directed by the PLA, and you are a fool to think otherwise

The Chinese government has repeatedly imprisoned people that take these pictures and don't censor them anon.

And if they are paid by the PLA, why do we have uncensored photos of the J-20 taken by spotters? Some break the law and get away with it. Most don't.

>>31489828
The PLA doesn't do a thing to the internet.

That's handled by the civilian government.

>>31489834
>there is literally no gab.

Are you blind? You can clearly see sky in the gaps between the control surfaces and the wing.

>>31489848
>Why would anyone be called anything?

Because he gave an uncensored photo to a US ally, the South Koreans????

>>31493147
>Keep laughing when China owns USA.
Pretty funny, considering China's MASSIVE grain trade deficit. Come on back when you people can figure out how to keep up with demand in simple agriculture.

>>31489855
>why can't they develop an engine that isn't dog shit?

But they have developed a number of capable engines. They just are not as good.

>They don't have disclose any issues whatsoever.
And America didn't disclose the issues with the B-2 either. Does that make it shit?

>That means every fucking thing has to be disclosed.
Uhh no it has not and no it does not.

>>31493435
>It's because they don't have to. The engine is fine. It's like asking why haven't Americans developed an anti ship missile that isn't dog shit.
All that delicious delusion. Tastes like happy.

>>31493491
>Care to provide a source for these lies?
What, the simple fact that the J-20 lacks a working HMD with DAS? Any of the above pictures with a clear view of the pilot do that.

Holy shit. Chang just came back on shift, and he sure is pissed.

>>31489886
>Thanks for making my point.

You said the PLA censors the internet you dumbfuck.

>>31489908
>No, traitor in the Chinese government eyes.

Uhh yeah surely there are no Chinese who think giving state secrets to enemy nations is traitorous.

>Also, what the FUCK makes you think the CIA is not there either?
The fact that China is literally a police state and everyone speaks Chinese and can detect a foreign Chinese accent in a split second? The fact that ratting out spies gets you 50,000 Yuan in China?

>>31489927
>Again, not showing the bottom so this picture is meaningless.

The picture clearly shows the control surface flush with the body.

>>31489935
>The only reason they sacrificed a smaller RCS to have canards
>canards = less stealthy
Oh this meme again

>>31493665
Kind of hard to do when you've managed to facefuck 35% of the arable land in your country over the last 20 years.

>>31493740
>You said the PLA censors the internet you dumbfuck.
So the great firewall doesn't exist? Good to know.

>>31490130
>but it still increases the RCS even in level flight.
[Citation needed]

>>31490186
The gaps are similar to the F-22's.
You can't just not have gaps.

>>31490258
The F-35 doesn't have TVC.

TVC's cost outweigh its benefits in today's long-range missile world.

>>31490314
And some have...

>>31490728
Are you really calling /k/ a military enthusiasts image board?

>>31491261
>Only in 96' did they start domestic websites.
[Citation needed]

And no your source does not state this.
Also, are you implying that spotters couldn't take pictures in 1995?

>>31491405
The Chinese source does not state your claim amigo.

>>31491531
Chinese air pollution rates have fallen every year since 2010 anon.
http://m.phys.org/news/2015-07-china-air-pollution-fall-greenpeace.html

>>31491761
[Citation needed]

>>31491771
Except Chinese air pollution levels have fallen every year since 2010.

>>31491826
During the 1950's and 1960's over 4 million Americans/Europeans died of air pollution.

Furthermore, China has made massive improvements in recent years in protecting its environment.

>>31493689
>What, the simple fact that the J-20 lacks a working HMD with DAS? Any of the above pictures with a clear view of the pilot do that.

Care to provide a source for these lies?

When did China claim the J-20 had a working HMD with DAS?

Source please.

>>31493778
>So the great firewall doesn't exist? Good to know.

Since you seem to be incapable of reading, therefore here is your post>>31489828

Notice something you wrote in it?
>Are you saying the PLA does not police its internet?
You said the PLA polices the internet.

Now source?

>>31493665
>considering China's MASSIVE grain trade deficit.
[Citation needed]

>>31493918
See the reason I have a problem with these posts>>31493689
is because the PLA has literally not released any complex information about the J-20 having HMD with DAS. Therefore how could they have lied about the J-20 having HMD with DAS?

There is LITERALLY no information from the Chinese military about this. How could they have lied?

>>31493892
>During the 1950's and 1960's over 4 million Americans/Europeans died of air pollution.
Read the sources. Roughly 30 million chinese people PER YEAR are dying from air pollution alone.

File: april14_feature_hansen_fig01.png (22KB, 581x536px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 581x536px

>>31493968
pic related

>>31493792
>>31493808
>>31493873
>>31493892
>>31493918
>>31493950
>>31494009
Holy shit, /k/. Looks like we kicked over a fiddy cent beehive and they are mightily pissed. Top kek.

>>31488950

They should keep em' yellow, it's sexy AF

File: Eagle shit.jpg (181KB, 1842x1074px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1842x1074px

Jesus Christ, China. The sheer asshurt damage control ITT.

>>31488152
Hopefully this will push for f22 upgrades.
I kinda doubt this j20 will be 1/2 as good, but it doesnt matter.

We got the f15 because they thought the foxbat was god teir.

>>31493808
>and no your source does not state this

>In December of 1996, work on the China Public Multimedia Communication Network, known as Net 169, was launched in an all-round way. The country's first group of web sites including Guangdong Shilingtong, Tianfu Hotline and Shanghai Online opened.

Kill yourself.

>>31495247
>see russians making plane
>assume it's some sort of superfighter
>build superfighter to counter it
>turns out it's just an interceptor which suffers from issues like "risks engine burnout at max speed"

[laughing USAF]

>>31496098
>assume
[laughing MIC]

>>31493463
>uhhhhh no.

Uhhh yes. X-35 2000. F-35 LRIP 2006.

>>31496098
Ya, but we still got a better jet was a result.
Regardless if this j-20 is shit or not, we can get some f22 upgrades.

>>31488281
>>31488555
Checked but I think you're overestimating the transparency of the Chinese programs, you're aware of the F-35 failures because the program is highly publicized and thus open to all sorts of scrutiny.

Plus as much as I fucking love the J-20 and would absolutely have sex with it if it were a woman I have to say it's nowhere near as cutting edge as the F-35 is and... yeah that makes a difference. Plus the Chinese have put in some interim solutions to get a functional product, while the American way tends to lean toward developing through issues no matter what. (hence the fucking budget issues) I don't think this is an indication of a bad design in either case, everything from the F-22, to the J-20, to the F-35 and PAK FA are all technical marvels and quite capable. Comparing one to the other and going, "ha, this one is better because that one has X issue," is an inherently flawed argument, I don't know why it's so often used.

>>31489860
>>31493641
>gaps shenanigans
Those are probably by design, what's important is the main body of the canard being flush with the airframe which it is. Every aircraft has some form of intentional space between control surfaces and their immediate neighboring structural element. Especially so for something like the F-22 and J-20 which have a big, big laundry list of expectations so they had better not fuck up in-flight from a jammed control surface.

>>31496525
>what's important is the main body of the canard being flush with the airframe which it is.

If you look, anon posted a pic that showed the front of the canard might not be flush due to the curve of the body.

>>31496698
That's the leading edge of the canard, I don't know why they did it or if it's just the angle (it could very well be the angle making it look that way) but it doesn't look like it would cause any issues.

At a certain point tiny gaps aren't going to be a big deal, you could go on the outside and put some "speed holes" in the wing with a claw hammer and you might not actually cause any significant problems. Well, other than incurring the wrath of some very angry Chinese gentlemen.

Fluid dynamics are weird, actually I think the shape of that leading edge might actually act as a vortex generator or something at certain angles of attack so maybe it's intentional. I don't know.

>>31493950
>>31493740
>>31493627

>THE PLA DOES NOT CENSOR THE INTERNET, SOMEBODY ELSE DOES!

What a weak strawman, being that the issue was not who was censoring, but the censoring itself.

Litterally a distinction without a difference.

>>31496854
We are talking about RCS, where shapeing is huge. Gaps between control surfaces contribute significantly. If the leading edge is pointed and not flush, thats a HUGE issue (hence why they clipped the back edge)

>>31494626
You mean answering your questions with facts and information and burgers get butthurt because there is nothing else burgers do?

File: lizard sandwich.jpg (202KB, 530x558px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 530x558px

>>31496878
Uh, any radar that's hitting that is not going to have a wavelength large enough to make a difference. What you should be concerned about is the straight edge of the canard and not the tiny gap in the front, that makes a much more significant difference and it's a failing of the J-20.

>>31496910
I could not disagree more. If straight edges give higher RCS, the B-2 must have a fuckhuge frontal DB.

No, the angle of the various angles of the body can create an RCS traps that amplifies returns, the void created by the front of the canard is a classic RCS trap.

>>31497059
Straight edges on control surfaces do, anon. That's why the F-35 and F-22 have control surfaces designed in such a way to minimize presenting anything but a set of common angles. That's also why stealth designs have pretty much universally eschewed canards because it's dumb to design around. That RCS trap you mentioned is invariably going to be created when the canard isn't at rest, so it's a moot point.

Not a single US or Russian stealth design has used canards for control surfaces for a reason. My guess is the Chinese are just biting the bullet and using a canard because it's A: easy and B: the RCS trap is only present at certain angles and under certain conditions anyway.

>>31489935
>hurr durr canards are shit but the F22's horizontal stabilators are fine despite being literally the same thing

>>31497255
>despite being literally the same thing

Except not at all.

>>31497178
The RCS trap will indeed be created when the canard is out of plane, but one will always be present assumeing the leading edge not being flush.

>>31497255
You should read what I posted here: >>31497178 because the F-22's stabilizers are neatly in line with the fuselage while the J-20 isn't. Not that it matters, the RCS trap of either is going to be minuscule at rest.

Since both designs feature RCS reduction features (jagged edges on the bay doors, etc) then it's safe to say the Chinese have looked at the canards thoroughly and either determined the effort wasn't worth it or there was little issue from their use.

>>31491388
>not realizing you're in one of the largest haggling cultures in the world
>not realizing you have to threaten to walk away without paying to get the shit you actually want
stupid americucks

>>31497332
>Agree to do something
>Dont do it
>This is "haggleing"

>>31497316
>The RCS trap will indeed be created when the canard is out of plane, but one will always be present assumeing the leading edge not being flush.
I literally just covered that here: >>31497331

I don't see an issue with it personally, the wavelength is larger than that space is wide so it's literally impossible to be a trap like you're suggesting. When it's not at rest? Sure, but otherwise? No.

>>31497332
That's not haggling at all, that's fraud. Haggling occurs prior to an agreement, not after.

This is why people hate dealing with the Chinese and for good reason.

>>31497059
The B2 does.. but only on radars that take up huge areas because of their retard huge wavelength.

>>31497332
>>31497369
>That's not haggling at all, that's fraud. Haggling occurs prior to an agreement, not after.

That's what passes for it in China. It's shitty, call it what you want, but it's a part of the culture that's been established over the last 2,000 years.

If you pay for a product before seeing it, you are regarded as a fool by Chinese.

>>31495247
If the J-10B/C causes the USAF to blow money on upgrading the F-15C's to an updated version.

Then heck yeah they're going to spend the moola on F-22 / -35 / PAC.

>>31497409
>fraud is apart of chinese culture

Well, yeah, thats litterally the entire point of the screencaps anon. Its not, however, haggleing. Its pure fraud.

You agree to do something, you do it. Otherwise you are a faggot of the highest order.

>>31497458
I dont think the j-10 plays a major role in the F-15 upgrade decision.

The J-10 is a lo 4th gen fighter.

The F-15 already has an aesa too, so its already overmatches the J-10

Given the involvement of Russian and Ukrainian assistance in all of their other aerospace programs, it wouldn't surprise me to see Russian expertise in the J-20.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-china-jet-idUSTRE77H1AZ20110818

>>31497398
Actually, head on, the B2 has very good VHF stealth due to haveing no vertical surfaces and basically being an infinite plate (to the radar).

>>31497369
>its too small

X band is generally what steath works towards reducing, and its wavelength is 3 to 4 cms. The gap is much larger than that.

>>31497458
F-22 already recived some major upgrades, just quietly. Its radar doubled in range, for example.

>>31497718
They literally used the J-10C as the reason for the upgrades as the F-15 "No longer had the margin of survival we want"..

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1697094-air-force-massive-high-tech-f-15-upgrade

>>31497800
Not VHF, VLF.


Can't target anything worth a shit with it.

But it can do this: "Hey, there's this thing over yonder, feels like it might be a wing spar.. no idea where exactly, just ball parking it".
That's when you fill the sky with hunting fighters & pray to whatever deity you believe in that they find it.

>>31497836
>They literally used the J-10C as the reason for the upgrades as the F-15 "No longer had the margin of survival we want"..

They, being congress, not the airforce (which is modernizeing the F-15s anyways)

Now, im going to post a quote, because i think it adequately summerizes the knowlege level of the people in question. Lets see if you can spot the massive, glareing error.

>in the 1980s, the US F-15 was vastly superior to the Chinese equivalent – the J-10. However, Chinese technical advances in recent years have considerably narrowed that gap to the point where the Chinese J-10 is now roughly comparable to the US F-15, the report explained.

>>31497877
Actually yes, VHF.

From the front, there are no vertical surfaces to reflect off of, and that drastically reduces the VHF RCS.

VHF is around 1 to 10 meters. The B-2, at its thickest, is only 5 meters.

File: 1452017101961.jpg (27KB, 350x335px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x335px

>>31498058
Oh my god they literally made the same mistake as the retards who post "m1 vs t90 who win" threads

>>31491421
>It's not like regulations are in place to improve business efficiency by avoiding the shitshow that is negotiating with con-artists or anything