Possibly, but the PLA isn’t very media savvy so they might not release (or even take) any such photos.

in japanese news that picture has not appeared yet

This is why you don’t rely on google translate. The sentence means “most advanced” in the sense of the most up to date technology, and refers to AESAs in general, not the J-10B’s AESA specifically.

thanks, i have to admit while i understand a bit kanjies, in reality i do not speak Chinese thank you for the translation since my knowledge of kanjies come from Japanese

China in talks for more Russian arms as tensions with Japan rise
http://idrw.org/?p=32499

and some pictures of Z-10

Having that grid obstructing airflow though has got to effect performance. Maybe the PAKFA isn’t as fast as we have imagined. Not that it would be slow, just unexceptional.

Engines work with air flow at Mach 0.7, so if the air flow in the duct is subsonic after being slowed down at the intake ramps, performance will remain unaffected, but if the grid is on the intake lip as in the F-117 then the aircraft can not fly beyond subsonic speeds, PAKFA has it at the subsonic section of the duct, at that section flow is already subsonic despite its intake ramps allow for speeds up to Mach 3

Thanks for the reply, squares with what I was thinking. In essence, all three possibilities that I mentioned. The blocker does not appear to be a grid, more like the Super Hornet’s if anything. There was also the post from aviation week 2010 where it was described as an adjustable series of vanes if Sweetman’s analysis was correct. ( I know it’s old, but in light of the recent patent information, was he on to something?)
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:c3f1c693-d1d6-4f37-b3fd-e7f16e087b2e

Bold statement, aerodynamics you could make a case for based on evidence and design philosophy presented in the patents. The higher level of stealth? That is conjecture, computer modeling can only go so far as to Russian figures given for the F-22 RCS.

i am not russian and my knowledge of Russian is scarse, but if the grid is working as a blocker it reminds me this

so in my opinion, if it has a stealth use, this, the RAM on the walls of the intake walls and the slight s S ducts could give a small RCS with an excellent performance, but i do not know

That is interesting. With the partial bend of the duct, part of the engine will be exposed necessitating the blocker. I am curious as to the driver of this design aspect: keeping sufficient volume between engines for the weapons bays, concerns over frontal cross-section, Better airflow to the engine? ( which has a larger effect on efficiency blocker vs. serpentine bend )

I had tried to point out the fan blade issue to him. That curved blisks would be a problem for RCS if exposed. Also that Rolls Royce and others had investigated PMC blades (and made no claims about radar absorption).

The PAKFA uses a very smart set of solutions, why? S ducts are aerodynamically not the best for pressure recovery, due to aerodynamic distortions of the flow, straight ducts reduce boundary layer accumulation and therefore volume too and drag.

The grid is in the subsonic section of the inlet duct, if you remember, F-117 has a grid too for RCS reduction on the intake lips, at supersonic speeds the need for air supersonic shocks does not allow for a fixed intake, thus setting the grid deep inside the inlet duct is a very smart solution.

Remember F117 was a subsonic airplane with fixed intake.

Another advantage is the PAKFA can fly with weapons bays with camber, it will generate lift and reduce volume, this makes the jet basically a Su-27 but its cross section is very small, looking at the PAKFA from the front you see a small forebody, in F-22 or J-20 you see huge forebodies specially in J-20 the bumps for the DSI increase the frontal cross section, same problem has the F-35, this in F-35 increases drag and it is know F-35 is a fat aircraft in terms of air drag.

PAKFA will be faster, in fact what the Russians wanted is not go far stray from the Su-27 proven aerodyamics.

Why do you call it “Chinese Phantom”? It’s not a copy of the F-4. There’s no connection. It doesn’t even resemble the F-4. It’s much more like the Su-15, & is similar in role.

i did not mean it is a copy, i meant it fills the same role and belongs to the same generation only that, there is no need to overblow my comment, it was just a personal feeling, to me it reminds me the F-4 with its intakes and bulbous nose, but of course it looks closer to the Su-15, however in Asia its close equivalent is the F-4