Kapedaniit’s a unibody type of work, like what they use to produce an iphone or macbook air. It’s basically carved out a single piece of metal.
Doh! Thanks for the laugh…
already confirm this plant wingspan is 11.5 meter，so the length is around 16～17 meter
Confirmed? I also confirmed the length to be about 12m, given the length of the truck pulling it
I remember Kapedani now.
I had a trawl through his history.
He’s invariably wrong on things. It was interesting that pre PAK-FA, he basically called it vapour ware, and intimated that it was just a flanker upgrade, etc etc. There are other examples.
Given this history, if I was a betting man, I’d be putting money on this thing being whatever the exact opposite of whatever Kapedani is currently saying..
Yes I remember how people accused me of photo-shopping in a compressor face into the T-50 prototype picture 🙂 Yes, I remember that too. I was right on the T-50…99% of the time. Still am.
KapedaniThanks for the answers. So it seems the NH-90 was not connected to the munitions testing going on at the same time.
KapedaniThe platform it is resting on is still pretty ridiculous. Is it still parading around China for theater purposes?
12m length…probably a carrier trainer. Not likely to be a “stealth aircraft”
KapedaniIn what way is its rounded shape better or more stealthy than the nacelle of the T-50 is simply beyond me.
Well, because “rounded”, doesn’t mean “round”. And simply because something is “rounded”, doesn’t mean it can’t have “stealth” features. It most certainly can, if you know how they design those surfaces, and the materials, and the structures underneath it.
Which is why, you can make something that “looks” stealthy, but in fact may not approach the levels of these other designs. And yet I am accused of “armchair engineering”, while you apparently don’t have to provide the slightest bit of proof that the competitor designs exhibit any such qualities. Interesting.
KapedaniYou are kidding, right? Just one look at the previous design, the S37 Berkut, reveals that they have been considering the S-ducts as early as two decades ago. Their absence on the T-50 is definitely purposeful – most likely they have different techniques to cut down the frontal aspect RCS.
Regarding the argument about countering the Eurocanards, they already have the Su-35 for that.
I am always amused to death by seeing those me-too-aircraft-engineers who immediately have a judgement at hand based on the Mk1 eyeball analysis. The world must be insane not to listen to you…
BTW, have you ever seen the engine nacelle of the ”stealthy” F-35, if we already talk about it? In what way is its rounded shape better or more stealthy than the nacelle of the T-50 is simply beyond me.
Actually the only “me-too-aircraft-engineer” here is, well, you. And here’s why. You are the one judging the F-35’s “stealth” based on your eye-ball.
I am making an “educated assumption”, that an aircraft company that has been designing and developing radar-defeating aircraft and materials for the past 30 years, has in fact refined and achieved results which one can be confident in. On the other hand, an aircraft company that has never demonstrated any know-how, or capability of designing/manufacturing such designs…and in fact has chosen to take approaches to such a design that are 180 degrees opposite to the approaches that those who have been designing, building and operating such aircraft for 30 years…is likely not going to achieve comparable results.
You accuse me of “not accepting that people don’t believe me!” Well, actually I don”t see why I ought to “believe you” that a radar blocker is going to have comparable results, to the s-duct design of the other aircraft. You say ‘this has been beaten to death”. Indeed it has…you can’t get comparable results through the 2 different approaches. Why should I…believe you…that it can? It’s actually physically impossible, unless we are supposed to suspend disbelief and assume that the Russians have developed a type or RAM that is so superior to anything in existence, that one “bounce” off that surface produces equivalent “absorption” to having the radar energy bounce inside an s-duct with radar-absorbent structures, multiple times.
The issue isn’t the making of an S-duct. Making an S-duct is easy. An S-duct doesn’t make anything “stealthy”, otherwise the P-80 shooting star would have been a “stealthy design”. It’s what the radar energy does inside it, and what structures and materials are inside it, that matter. Radar energy doesn’t behave like light; you don’t achieve a reduced “reflection” from an engine simply by hiding it from view.
Which is why when you say things like “The Russians tried S-ducts in the S-37”, you show that you don’t understand what, in fact, makes those aircraft “stealthy”, and why a design of a variable-geometry conventional inlet with a straight path to the engine, and with su-27 style auxiliary air inlets, radar blocker or no radar blocker, is not going to achieve comparable results.
And the PAK-FA’s inlet isn’t even the biggest offender. That being said, I give credit to Sukhoi for making the second best attempt out there after the US designs. It’s no small matter, but I don’t see how it comes close.
We have been over this so many times it is old. Both regarding engine nacelles and intakes. That logic is terribly flawed.
Well if you say so, I’m convinced. I remember some people in this forum when the PAK-FA first came out, were DYING to “prove” that it has an “s-duct”. When I posted pictures of that compressor face staring out of the inlet, at first I was accused of photoshop! (of course!), and then once denial passed, everyone (including you, probably) were trying their best to show that, well, s-ducts are so yesterday! But I don’t think you still get, to this day, how an F-22 achieves a reduced radar reflection from its engine, through the s-duct…to compare it against something else. (and I don’t claim that I do!!)
Then again some people thought F-15 would never be matched.
40 years later, anything can be matched, at least in air shows.
Kapedanimost other aircraft by road transport is not done through angled support
Sure. But even if you were going to, for whatever reason (and I cant think of any)…that contraption it’s sitting on seems needlessly complicated. You can make a simple A-frame to position it at whatever angle you want.
But it is clear now that this is a propaganda trip, whatever the object may be. I don’t think the Chinese bureaucrats get that the more they try to dramatize things, the sillier it looks to everyone else.
Kapedanisounds like their tank designs, start with a T-55 copy, add increments until it becomes a new tank, the Type-99
Not really. But, just like with tanks (or cars etc), simply because it “looks” the part, why do we automatically assume parity or comparability? ie, the J-20 appears to be designed with low observability in mind, certainly. However, what makes us think that the Chinese have developed the necessary technologies to achieve the needed results, besides the exterior “skin deep” features which can be copied by anyone.
How did you come to this conclusion?
There’s nothing on the PAK-FA which indicates that this is a design which competes in terms of “stealth” with the US designs. That thing still has auxiliary air inlets which are like the Su-27s (not to mention the bigger stuff, like air intakes and engine nacelles). Despite the propaganda, Sukhoi knows this as well, and probably never intended it to be in the same class as F-22 or F-35, but rather counter the Euro-fighters.
The Russians in the end may have a more achievable goal; they know their capabilities are limited in this field, so they design to those limitations. The Chinese design on the other hand, seems more ambitious, but may not be able to follow through on the technology.
KapedaniWell you’re absolutely right Austin that it is a huge leap forward for Chinese aircraft industry. However, my point was that it may certainly “look” the part, but that doesn’t make it a “5-th generation design”, just yet.
KapedaniYeah, all that security says L-15.
It’s nothing more than Kabuki theater.
to be fair for the non mock up believers here’s a few actual aircraft being transported by ground in the US
No one is questioning the validity of transporting an aircraft by road. Nothing new there.
* If its a “mock up” of something… then surely it can be disassembled and transported in pieces…. this isnt a mock up.
And how would they create all the drama and chest-thumping on the internet? That’s the whole point.
* Aircraft is at least 11/12m long…. car beside it is an A4 Audi (if im not mistaken), which is 4.5m long.
Right, which makes likely a trainer-type aircraft
KapedaniThat is some really well done Kabuki Theater.
On the other hand, it seems the support structure is a lot better than I had thought. I take what I said before, back. But, it still seems needlessly complicated simply to achieve an angled support. A simple A-frame would not have worked?
KapedaniWhy would J-20 first flight would cause an embarrasment to Robert Gates , unless ofcourse they stole some thing from F-22 or JSF program and Robert Gates is aware of it.
The Chinese communists loves Kabuki Theater. Remember how the J-20 was introduced to the world; supposed “sneak” photographs from civilian observers. Turns out those were intentional (and a very poorly done “leak”). The same now with this “F-60” airframe parading around China with 2 dozen vehicles in the tail. It’s hard to take these things seriously.
But in the end, the real issues are more important than the propaganda and the drama the Chinese government tries to create over these thing (a lot of it is for internal consumption, of course). Ultimately, you can make an aircraft that looks “stealthy”, like the J-20. But that doesn’t make it a “5-th generation” aircraft, or a competitor or equivalent to the F-22 or anything else. It remains to be seen what will come out of it, but let’s not jump ahead of ourselves here and declaring this as something it has not yet proven to be
Th PAK-Fa at least seems to have much more modest goals, and given Russia’s greater experience, of course it would be further ahead in development.
KapedaniAs earlier, define what an LHD is supposed to do.
It’s quite irrelevant what it is supposed to do. What is relevant is what it can do given this additional capability, and whether that additional capability is worth the effort. You say no, I say yes…but throwing around “definitions”, is not a convincing argument.
VTOL aircraft will never adequately replace CATOBAR aircraft.
Doesn’t seem to be the case, either in proven combat history of the past, or the existing technology.
KapedaniFor me, the added expense doesn’t even come close to justifying itself.
Compared to what? Again, if you have an aircraft that is designed to complement or in some cases, replace the capability of conventional carrier aircraft, than the cost comparison isn’t just between the two aircraft, but also needs to include the carriers that come with it.
The money would be better spent on unmanned lightweight strikers that could operate off an LHD and work within a 50-100 mile radius of the baby carrier.
Given:
– A predator weighs approx a tonne at MTOW.
– There has been substantial work on auto-recovery onto CATOBARS.
– Capability has already been demonstrated in theatre.
– Many more UCAVs could be carried/stored than manned VTOLs.
– Combat losses are monetary only, thus assets can be committed to effectively suicide missions if it were necessary to save troops.
The drone itself would have to have take off and landing capabilities similar to the aircraft, if it is to operate from those ships. No such drone exists today. And a drone like the Predator is certainly not a replacement for something like an F-35B. Leaving aside the obvious, it’s also not an aircraft that can operate in a high-threat environment. You may say that you’re only loosing drones…but you’re also not completing your missions.
It would be a piece of cake (given a fraction of a manned VTOLs budget) to install a catapult, arresting gear and the control hardware. Indeed, it would probably be already done and working if it had started at the same time as an alternative program that I will not name.
With none of the capabilities that other program brings. Sure, if your aim is just making something cheap, lots of options are available.
KapedaniBut since all the energy cannot be either absorbed or completely redirected a F-22 and F-35 are still going to be detectable albeit at shorter distances.
So you’ve basically said nothing. That’s the point of being VLO, as opposed to invisible.
In such a context, they can be totally passive, the inbound aircraft never knowing it has been detected.
Someone who knows better than me can address this, but this sounds unlikely to me.
Now take the F-35B with shorter weapon bays (and according to the article quoted earlier, they don’t even know yet if the Spear will be compatible with the B variant of the JSF), with limited payload due to its inability to take off or land vertically with heavy weapons (its empty weight is been constantly reduced to try to address such issue by removing key systems like fire extinguishers), limited range due to the fact that it likely won’t take off with a full fuel tank
How much range do you need, and, what else could do it better? You mentioned a lot about “artillery” and “UAV” or how a destroyer which can provide 100km coverage of a shoreline is sufficient, but an aircraft with 900km combat radius, is suddenly “limited range”?
Because they were still analogue radars
Sounds like more wishful thinking that a large immobile radar broadcasting it’s location to anyone within 500 miles, is a solution.
KapedaniWhatever floats your boat. I’m sure the commies in China are getting a good laugh just like with Gates who said China was far away from a stealth fighter and then having its debut on his visit to China.
There’s no doubt that the J-20 is an impressive looking machine, and a giant leap forward for Chinese industry, but making something that looks the part, doesn’t mean you’ve made something that does the job:
Sign In
