It is not confirmed whether the definitive MRAAM for the T-50 will be rocket or ramjet powered. For a couple of years there was a consensus that rocket power was more likely, but that was never more than speculation. In recent years there have been indications that it may be a ramjet motor after all.

But at this moment and in near future, Meteor is the only ramjet air to air missiles that exist

Almost twice the weight of the JSM

I think it important to note that the extra weight is not all fuel, there are sereval missiles that are alot heavier than JSM but actually has shorter range. Ex : KEPD 350( maximum range around 500 km ), JASSM ( maximum range 370 km )

All else equal

If i recall correctly , warhead of Kh-59 is much bigger.

it stands to reason that the Russian missile will out-range JSM, and by a handsome margin too.

Tha maximum flight range of Kh-59MK2 according to manufacturer is 285 km
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/513/539/

thanks.
btw you gotta avoid the Haarvalalala
he just likes to make anti-f35 posts. stuff far worse than x vs y aircraft threads since he’s biased from the beginning.

At least, i can have a smart discussion with haarvalla, unlike KGB which is basically another JSR

I highlighted frontal. But even this.

Stealth features make the aircraft appear smaller than it otherwise is on radar. What seems to be lost on you is that making the aircraft smaller and low profile to begin with, is a stealth feature in itself. And we can clearly see that the J 20 has way more girth than the Pak Fa. Not only is the aircraft fatter. It is also longer and wider.

You are pointing to what you think is a more stealthy angle “less lumpy” or whatever. And maybe you are right. Maybe your RCS eye balling has detected an angle that is less stealthy on the Pak Fa than the J 20. But that does not mean that the J 20 is more stealthy period. Because the J 20 is way bigger and fatter.

So if you want to claim that the J 20 is stealthier than the Pak Fa, you have to prove that the angles you are seeing on the Pak Fa, are so un-stealthy that it makes up for the fact that the J 20 is longer, wider and taller.

There is no way the J 20 can be stealthier than the Pak Fa. The size difference is too big.

Russian stealth design philosophy was to make the jet as low profile as possible and not to sweat the details. China and the US designs made the jets bulkier but they sweat the details. So then we have people who look at the Pak Fa and notice a detail that the Raptor has and the Pak fa doesn’t and they say aha.. no stealth. But no. That is not how it works.

Firstly, a small corner reflector in the luneburg lens or a chaff clound can have RCS thoundsands times bigger than an F-22 eventhough physically they are alot smaller. In term of stealth attribute: shaping and material play much more important roles than physical size. If 2 object have the same shape and made from same material then yes the smaller object will have smaller RCS if we assuming both object are still in optical region in respect to radar wavelength. But J-20 and PAK-FA do not have similar shape, a slight different in size ( they are at most 20-25% different ) doesnot offset the advantage in shaping.

Secondly, i dont have to prove anything and certainly not to you. I said ” i think ” not ” iam sure ” ,and my post is the answer to the question Y-20 bacon asked me.If he wanted your opinion, he would have asked for it. Maybe if you stopped being immature and defensive every time someone talk about PAK-FA design trade off, people would have care about your opinion.

hey mig-31, since we’re on the topic of stealth design and acceptable rcs
what do you think of this article on the j-20
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1?r=UK&IR=T&IR=T

hey mig-31, since we’re on the topic of stealth design and acceptable rcs,,

what do you think of this article on the j-20
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1?r=UK&IR=T&IR=T

it mentioned

Davis characterized the J-20 as “high-speed, long-range, not quite as stealthy (as US fifth-gen aircraft), but [the Chinese] clearly don’t see that as important.” According to Davis, the J-20 is “not a fighter, but an interceptor and a strike aircraft” that doesn’t seek to contend with US jets in air-to-air battles. Instead, “the Chinese are recognizing they can attack critical airborne support systems like AWACS (airborne early warning and control systems) and refueling planes so they can’t do their job,” Davis said. “If you can force the tankers back, then the F-35s and other platforms aren’t sufficient because they can’t reach their target.”

“The J-20, in particular, is different than the F-22 in the context that, if you take a look and analyze the design, it may have some significant low-observable capabilities on the front end, but not all aspects — nor is it built as a dogfighter,” Deptula said. “But quite frankly, the biggest concern is its design to carry long-range weapons.”

What the J-20 lacks in stealth and dogfighting ability it makes up for by focusing on a single, comparatively soft type of target. Unlike the US, which has fielded extremely stealthy aircraft, China lacks the experience to create a plane that baffles radars from all angles.

I dont think J-20 is intended to be a dogfighter either. But RCS wise, i think it would be good. In term of shaping i think J-20 got a stealthier design than PAK-FA, at least from frontal or underneath. The side aspect of J-20 seem quite stealthy as well even when compared to F-35. With that being said, stealth is a combination of RAM and shaping, and i dont know how good the RAM of J-20 is, could it be comparable to Russian and US counterpart? may be, may be not. But overall, the only disappointing aspect of J-20 to me is the very small weapon bays.

How do you know that is the engine face and not the airflow modulator. (Jo Asakura claimed that due to the shape of the inlet it would have to have something like an airflow modulator to deliver an even pressure at the engine face). If that is an airflow modulator there is no way of knowing how much of the engine face would be visible behind it without it.

Most fighter jet engine have that frontal cover as far as i know.Unless they doesnot reflect radar wave like engine fan blade, i dont see much different. Ex:

The canting matters. You are imagining that the engine is straight and then jumping to the conclusion that the S shape is not enough. Look at the red box. Then look at the engine face. The black line that the poster made is not square with the engine clearly. The engine does not kine up with the intake like you think it does.

I dont understand what you are trying to say. I said the engine in line with the blue circle because it points down. Both blueprint and photos support my point.That why it showing . Who said it is in line with your red circle?

You need to be brought up to speed. The prototype blueprint also shows * both off center and upward * intake to quote you verbatim.

Here is a picture of said * off center and upward * intake configuration. Notice something ?

That is the YF-23, not the F-23EMD used in radar scattering test. F-23 has a driverless supersonic inlet bump that acts as blocker of radar vision.
Even YF-23 shows much smaller area of engine face compared to PAK-FA

No one claimed PAK-FA is horrible or useless because it has expose engine yet. It is only you fearing people will do so you create BS comments like F-23 show more engine or PAK-FA has more curve engine

Plasma stealth is only good for very slow flying planes, otherwise the plasma cloud can’t keep up with the plane.

Plasmas do not have a charge they are neutral, it is only the individual ions that have a charge however balanced numbering means no net charge.With no net charge to the plasma there is no way to keep it attracted to the body of the aircraft unless russians have also developed the technology for active force fields. Ionizing a large quanitity of gas would require an enormous and continuous supply of power as it would have to do so constantly as it moved through the sky. Phase shift leads plasma to inherently be colored leaving a large visual footprint. In addition to this you have a big heat signature regardless of the temperature of the plasma because you have to have something on board generating the energy for it. With that kind of demand a battery simply wouldn’t cut it.

Also lets take into account that the atmosphere contains oxygen, nitrogen and CO2. Does anyone here actually know what a plasma is? A plasma is a substance that has been heated so far beyond its boiling point that the individual atomic nuclei are split from the electrons allowing the electrons to flow freely through the medium as ions.

If you wanted to turn the atmosphere around the aircraft into plasma you would have to produce so much heat that nothing short of a fully-heat shielded (and thus very heavy) aircraft is going to survive it, and it is still going to leave a massive IR signature. And such a heat shielded craft wouldnt be able to handle it for so long. Your only other option would be to store plasma on board in some form which would give you how long? A few seconds? If you want me to I’ll do the math for you, I’d wager even with a Tu-160 storing the plasma you’d have at best a few seconds