Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

J-20 radar signature

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> J-20 radar signature Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 11:05:07 AM   
mrfeizhu


Posts: 131
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline
How is the J-20 radar signature determined? ( or any aircraft for that matter) The J-20 is a bigger aircraft than the f-35 , weights 2000 kg more, but has a smaller radar signature. The f-22 and f-35 are planes that are in production, and planes that people see flying around. The j-20 is not seen as much and much less on radar, not because it stealth aircraft, more because its still in development. Also this is there first stealth plane, even with "borrowed" ( maybe they will return it) data from The U.S. and other countries it seems unlike they would be able to build a more stealth aircraft than the U.S. or other countries. After all they have trouble building jet engines, and this is admitted publicly.

_____________________________

Old man sort of living in China for the last 10 years
Post #: 1
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 11:36:58 AM   
MR_BURNS2


Posts: 974
Joined: 7/18/2013
From: Austria
Status: offline
Maybe they used this article?

I dont know where he gathered all that data, but he seems to have found quite a lot.

_____________________________

Windows 7 64; Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.7GHz; 6144MB RAM; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970;



(in reply to mrfeizhu)
Post #: 2
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 11:46:03 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6469
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
The jet engine manufacturing is a great point. But, it will limit the number of planes deployed, but might be a factor in its performance.

(in reply to MR_BURNS2)
Post #: 3
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 11:54:49 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6469
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Just read the article. While it has some interesting information, it makes so many assumptions, the conclusions are close to useless.

Also note what is not included in their simulation. Those are very important things left out. This is one of those times that because more information is available on one plane than another, its an advantage for the unknown plane because of the pessimistic view of the author.

One thing really missing is maintenance discussion. All stealth planes with special skins and coatings require a huge amount of hours to maintain just the skin. That to me is as important as initial production and design.

In the end, this is one of those papers that tries throw so much data at you that you feel there must be a great point in there somewhere. The only point I can get is that we know so little about the J-20, its almost impossible to compare it to any other plane.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 4
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 1:27:29 PM   
mrfeizhu


Posts: 131
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline
I have read this article, I don't see the technology here as cutting edge, There first design of a stealth plane they make one better than any one else. The space program, is basically a small version of Skylab designed by computers not slide rule technology. But one thing you have to say the pilots of the planes march very good, i always see on TV the air force pilots marching to their planes. But maybe its like the old navy, if its painted and the brass shines it works, so if the pilots march good they fly good.

_____________________________

Old man sort of living in China for the last 10 years

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 5
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 3:26:40 PM   
Blu3wolf


Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Just read the article. While it has some interesting information, it makes so many assumptions, the conclusions are close to useless.

Also note what is not included in their simulation. Those are very important things left out. This is one of those times that because more information is available on one plane than another, its an advantage for the unknown plane because of the pessimistic view of the author.

One thing really missing is maintenance discussion. All stealth planes with special skins and coatings require a huge amount of hours to maintain just the skin. That to me is as important as initial production and design.

In the end, this is one of those papers that tries throw so much data at you that you feel there must be a great point in there somewhere. The only point I can get is that we know so little about the J-20, its almost impossible to compare it to any other plane.


this is one reason that newer fighter aircraft like the F-22 do not rely on a coating - you spend too much time repairing the coating... that said the material it is made from is radar absorbent - as well as toxic.

note also that the author of the linked site has a decided slant against the F35, and is convinced that russian gear is the only good stuff in the sky... I do agree with a number of his conclusions but Dr Kopp is one SME that has a reputation preceding him.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 6
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 4:58:57 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6469
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
He can have all the reputation he wants, his admitted gaps in his data should have signaled to either not bother writing the article or have a huge disclaimer at the very beginning of the article, not buried half way through.

btw, coating was the wrong term. Even the newer material requires significantly more maintenance and skill than traditional aircraft skin.

(in reply to Blu3wolf)
Post #: 7
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 5:23:44 PM   
Blu3wolf


Posts: 198
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: Western Australia
Status: offline
to clarify, if you have a read through pretty much any of the articles on that site, they all have either mistakes, gaps, or errors.

usually all 3.

I do agree with a few points made about the F35 there, but I would not rely on his work on an aircraft he has not even seen.

my apologies if my previous statement made it seem like I was trying to defend him - this was not the case.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 8
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 6:25:49 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
There is a calculation that occurs based on physical attributes and other variables. The detecting radar system matters as well.

I'll put a note in to double check.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Blu3wolf)
Post #: 9
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 6:41:36 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6469
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
To me the biggest difference is deployment. The F-35 is deploying today in numbers. The J-20 is still pre-production at best. As is typical with Chinese military news reporting, no one ever goes back to look and realize only 100 units ever deployed of some new military system.

This is incredibly common in tanks. Western defense reporters go on about the newest great PLA tank without ever looking to see that no more than 200 ever deployed. Meanwhile the still have 6000 upgraded T-55 vintage tanks as the core of their armored force. I suspect the same ting happens with aircraft too.

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 10
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/9/2013 7:43:47 PM   
cwemyss

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 11/29/2013
From: Grapevine, TX, USA
Status: offline
The other problem here is that actual radar cross section of aircraft is a) very complex and b) highly classified.

As to a: the amount of energy reflected back to a radar depends on the frequency of the radar and the relative angles between the aircraft and the transmitter. An F-117 has different RCS values against an S-band radar than against an X-band radar. And it's got different values at each different azimuth and pitch angle.

And b: Anyone who claims to have definitive rcs info on any aircraft is either lying, guessing, or breaking the law. The reall numbers are no doubt very closely held, and even aircraft that have been fielded for years will not have publically-discussed figures. Anything you see in literature (even Kopp's articles) is a guess.

And then even with all that, if you had true RCS values for an aircraft, and had a simulation that modeled it perfectly... actual radar performance is just an estimate too. Anyone think that the HQ-9 or S-400 marketing numbers are real and definitive?

Anyway.... not worth getting too wrapped around the axle for any particular value the CMANO developers chose. If the simulation feels right, its probably close.enough.


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 11
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/11/2013 10:44:46 AM   
ComDev

 

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
We have a number of different 2nd gen and 3rd gen stealth generations in the database. If I remember correctly the J-20 has the same stealth generation modifier as the F-22

*runs for cover....


_____________________________



Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to cwemyss)
Post #: 12
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/11/2013 12:39:23 PM   
Primarchx


Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline
I think this is why Ragnar is so protective of putting platforms into the DB before there's adequate data to model them with. There's a lot of pull from the community for access to emerging systems to play with as well as an expectation for technical accuracy. Having both (early access and full fidelity) is a knife edge to negotiate.

(in reply to ComDev)
Post #: 13
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/11/2013 12:40:59 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13239
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx
I think this is why Ragnar is so protective of putting platforms into the DB before there's adequate data to model them with. There's a lot of pull from the community for access to emerging systems to play with as well as an expectation for technical accuracy. Having both (early access and full fidelity) is a knife edge to negotiate.


DING!

_____________________________


(in reply to Primarchx)
Post #: 14
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/11/2013 1:48:41 PM   
El Savior

 

Posts: 337
Joined: 7/31/2003
From: Finland
Status: offline
IMHO, Command approach is much better. It's more fun to play with new toys than wait 20 years after stuff is unclassified.

Good guess is good enough and when new information is available database can be updated. This is still just a game, not War Department's war simulator.

Emsoy: J-20 as good as F-22. Can't say anything, I'm not stealth expert.

< Message edited by El Savior -- 12/11/2013 2:49:47 PM >


_____________________________

El Savior

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 15
RE: J-20 radar signature - 12/11/2013 2:06:49 PM   
Rudd

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 7/10/2013
Status: offline
quote:

IMHO, Command approach is much better. It's more fun to play with new toys than wait 20 years after stuff is unclassified.

Good guess is good enough and when new information is available database can be updated.

+1
quote:

This is still just a game, not War Department's war simulator.

Won't be long before it is, I bet

(in reply to El Savior)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> J-20 radar signature Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.304