China military and weapon development

[username unkown]

View: https://x.com/SquireDigital/status/1853495032872894951?t=_H1S9F8xU4JW1q3OUbe66Q&s=19


View: https://x.com/Andrzej94491984/status/1853454534497972551?t=3EI-_Go1VxfUtbOjQe4cNw&s=19


View: https://x.com/Teoyaomiquu/status/1853503537818550523?t=iH0gun3GXBgvmcLAH2Rq_w&s=19


View: https://x.com/FluteMagician/status/1853523663837946323?t=rQh46lxEVPrmnq-kIp3upw&s=19


View: https://x.com/PearlLeigh5/status/1853715283300827493?t=gjlNLxlEIsyOUxoPj8Zahg&s=19

I get your point even if I don't agree with you but stop posting about rivets and screw again and again

 

[Corvus Splendens]

India Air Force didn't it but still cancelled it?

IAF jumped ship because stealth was an afterthought on the PAK-FA. We were looking for a Raptor on a budget, not a barely stealthier Su-30 with ram coating. Russians paid supreme importance to it's radar and kinematics and then suddenly remembered about it's radar cross section. The idea was to out-scan and out-lock a Raptor with a powerful triple radar setup, lob missiles and then turn with a Flanker's agility. EW scenarios were handwaved, and honestly the Su-57 was the best they could come up with it back then.

Spoiler

"Comrade the compressor is visible, not enough curve...."
".....Quick add a grill and slather it with ram coating, that should take care of RCS cyka".

 

[rockdog]

IAF jumped ship because stealth was an afterthought on the PAK-FA. We were looking for a Raptor on a budget, not a barely stealthier Su-30 with ram coating. Russians paid supreme importance to it's radar and kinematics and then suddenly remembered about it's radar cross section. The idea was to out-scan and out-lock a Raptor with a powerful triple radar setup, lob missiles and then turn with a Flanker's agility. EW scenarios were handwaved, and honestly the Su-57 was the best they could come up with it back then.
View attachment 15005

Spoiler

"Comrade the compressor is visible, not enough curve...."
".....Quick add a grill and slather it with ram coating, that should take care of RCS cyka".

Sometimes history is really funny. this 04 prototype with 40% share of Indian investment, must be carefully inspected by IAF or DRDO officers and never flaw in Indian airspace. But no one expected it would flys in the air of Zhuhai...

 

[randombully]

Let’s Talk About The Su-57 And The Radar Blockers Allegedly Sighted For The First Time Inside The Felon’s Air Intake​

Let's Talk About The Su-57 And The Radar Blockers Allegedly Sighted For The First Time Inside The Felon's Air Intake

The Su-57 Felon's radar blockers were allegedly exposed by a video part of a longer feature aired by Russian television for the centenary of the Chkalov

theaviationist.com

S intake duct requieres more material thus is heavier add distorts the air flowing so Radar blockers are in SU-57

I'm highly skeptical that it can be as effective as an s duct.

 

[randombully]

IAF jumped ship because stealth was an afterthought on the PAK-FA. We were looking for a Raptor on a budget, not a barely stealthier Su-30 with ram coating. Russians paid supreme importance to it's radar and kinematics and then suddenly remembered about it's radar cross section. The idea was to out-scan and out-lock a Raptor with a powerful triple radar setup, lob missiles and then turn with a Flanker's agility. EW scenarios were handwaved, and honestly the Su-57 was the best they could come up with it back then.
View attachment 15005

Spoiler

"Comrade the compressor is visible, not enough curve...."
".....Quick add a grill and slather it with ram coating, that should take care of RCS cyka".

The reason for that was lack of money even with our investment, due to which ruskies did not want to go too far away from flanker design and reuse lots of components and machinery.

 

[Blademaster]

I'm highly skeptical that it can be as effective as an s duct.

It is not. It will generate a radar return no matter what.

 

[shade2]

I get your point even if I don't agree with you but stop posting about rivets and screw again and again

He's paid to do this.
Either he is banned by mods or allowed to do his job.

Guess their bosses are upset about the current Russia-NK gay romance so this is their way of passive aggressively turning their earlier-positive public sentiment against Russia

 

[Corvus Splendens]

He's paid to do this.
Either he is banned by mods or allowed to do his job.

Guess their bosses are upset about the current Russia-NK gay romance so this is their way of passive aggressively turning their earlier-positive public sentiment against Russia

Zhuhai is just a great opportunity for the Chinese to show that they have surpassed Russia in weapons development. Hence the montage of shitting on Russian hardware. They want to replace Russia in the global arms market. Bit of a superiority complex also at work here. Passive-aggressively telling their number one ally to sit down. Russkies shouldn't have come, the host is making a mickie out of them.

 

[E-195]

I'm highly skeptical that it can be as effective as an s duct.

Aircraft design is a science since you need laws of physics, math and chemistry, but is also an art to express in an aircraft how to use science in order to achieve a design goal.


What is good for stealth does not mean automatically it is good for aerodynamics and vice versa all the time.
Every thing has advantages and disadvantages.

Ideally aerodynamics will depend in what you need, if you want a slow high lift aircraft the best is a sailplane.



The shape of a glider allows low drag high lift, why? sears-haack body straight wings



Mirage III and MiG-21 are for high speed, so wing is delta contrary to a glider.


The Chinese J-20 or J-35 are not different each aircraft has design compromises, an intake duct also has advantages and disadvantages.

S ducts are longer thus air boundary layer will distort air flow more than a straight duct, further more they increase weight and price, and what hides the engine to radar also hides it to the air flow.

Straight ducts are shorter so less boundary layer formation, thus better flow, are cheaper, volumetrically speaking reduce cross section and volume and space needed and allow excellent flow to the engine


Su-57 is designed to be fast, it has variable geometry intakes and less curved intake ducts.

This reduces forebody radome and cockpit size.

J-20 has two huge DSI with huge bulgy bumps increasing frontal cross section and really flat faceted short nose, that is not a sears haack body, also has boxy intakes hiding lateral weapons bays and shallow belly bays, add S ducts it means it has a huge cross section high drag shape.

Its fuselage is not designed for speed, so they added delta wings set far behind the fuselage with fat tailbooms because they have a long fuselage and big canards. They tried to reduce drag with an ugly intake engine fairing transition from a rhomboid cross section into an 8 shapped cross section at the engines tail section.




The best equilibrium for stealth and aerodynamics is F-22, the best design for speed and maneuverability is Su-57.

radars blockers work but nothing is completely stealth since aircraft are made of different materials radar capability depends in wattage or power density and any material has limits of radar absorption and reflectivity, thus Su-57 prioritizes speed and post stall, which themselves are a contradiction, just barely solved by thrust vectoring nozzles.

J-20 has ventral vertical fins due to mediocre dorsal vertical fins performance and thick tailbooms due to a very aft delta wing, giving higher drag than F-15 or F-22 that have better designed tailbooms

 

[randombully]

Aircraft design is a science since you need laws of physics, math and chemistry, but is also an art to express in an aircraft how to use science in order to achieve a design goal.


What is good for stealth does not mean automatically it is good for aerodynamics and vice versa all the time.
Every thing has advantages and disadvantages.

Ideally aerodynamics will depend in what you need, if you want a slow high lift aircraft the best is a sailplane.
View attachment 15029


The shape of a glider allows low drag high lift, why? sears-haack body straight wings

View attachment 15030

Mirage III and MiG-21 are for high speed, so wing is delta contrary to a glider.


The Chinese J-20 or J-35 are not different each aircraft has design compromises, an intake duct also has advantages and disadvantages.

S ducts are longer thus air boundary layer will distort air flow more than a straight duct, further more they increase weight and price, and what hides the engine to radar also hides it to the air flow.

Straight ducts are shorter so less boundary layer formation, thus better flow, are cheaper, volumetrically speaking reduce cross section and volume and space needed and allow excellent flow to the engine


Su-57 is designed to be fast, it has variable geometry intakes and less curved intake ducts.

This reduces forebody radome and cockpit size.

J-20 has two huge DSI with huge bulgy bumps increasing frontal cross section and really flat faceted short nose, that is not a sears haack body, also has boxy intakes hiding lateral weapons bays and shallow belly bays, add S ducts it means it has a huge cross section high drag shape.

Its fuselage is not designed for speed, so they added delta wings set far behind the fuselage with fat tailbooms because they have a long fuselage and big canards. They tried to reduce drag with an ugly intake engine fairing transition from a rhomboid cross section into an 8 shapped cross section at the engines tail section.


View attachment 15031

The best equilibrium for stealth and aerodynamics is F-22, the best design for speed and maneuverability is Su-57.

radars blockers work but nothing is completely stealth since aircraft are made of different materials radar capability depends in wattage or power density and any material has limits of radar absorption and reflectivity, thus Su-57 prioritizes speed and post stall, which themselves are a contradiction, just barely solved by thrust vectoring nozzles.

J-20 has ventral vertical fins due to mediocre dorsal vertical fins performance and thick tailbooms due to a very aft delta wing, giving higher drag than F-15 or F-22 that have better designed tailbooms

View attachment 15035

I am aware of the facts that every design choice has positives and negatives, but which choice is better depends on which positive aspects you value highly and which negative aspects you absolutely don't want.
And I'm pretty sure that the advantages a S duct provides is valued very highly compared to its drawbacks, which makes it a better choice for an air Inlet in our modern battlefield environment compared to straight air intakes with radar blocker.
The importance of s duct only increases now that IRST/EOTS tech has improved at such a rapid rate.

 

[E-195]

Zhuhai is just a great opportunity for the Chinese to show that they have surpassed Russia in weapons development. Hence the montage of shitting on Russian hardware. They want to replace Russia in the global arms market. Bit of a superiority complex also at work here. Passive-aggressively telling their number one ally to sit down. Russkies shouldn't have come, the host is making a mickie out of them.

Russia does not need zhuhai the have Ukraine, they show by results not shows,

 

[E-195]

I am aware of the facts that every design choice has positives and negatives, but which choice is better depends on which positive aspects you value highly and which negative aspects you absolutely don't want.
And I'm pretty sure that the advantages a S duct provides is valued very highly compared to its drawbacks, which makes it a better choice for an air Inlet in our modern battlefield environment compared to straight air intakes with radar blocker.
The importance of s duct only increases now that IRST/EOTS tech has improved at such a rapid rate.

S ducts are used on F-18E and X-32 and now Su-57 with radar blockers, but are less curved.


In terms of aerodynamics and weight straight ducts is better, allowing better high AoA performance.

Su-27M with canards was much more agile than YF-22 without TVC nozzles.


on single engine fighters like Mirage III, LCA or F-35 S ducts make sense, but on twin engined fighters S ducts increase a lot of weight because a single side intake feeds a single engine so the S duct needs to be more distorted than in a single engine S intake duct of Mirage 2000.

 

[randombully]

S ducts are used on F-18E Rafale and X-32 and now Su-57.
In terms of aerodynamics and weight straight ducts is better, allowing better high AoA performance.

Su-27M with canards was much more agile than YF-22 without TVC nozzles.


on single engine fighters like Mirage III, LCA or F-35 S ducts make sense, but on twin engined fighters S ducts increase a lot of weight because a single side intake feeds a single engine so the S duct needs to be more distorted than in a single engine S intake duct of Mirage 2000.

That weight saving and more manurabilty is not worth the increase in RCS and increase in infra red signature of the jets.
Dog fights will be a rare phenomena in the age of bvr, secondly you can still make a very manurable fighter jet with an S duct, rafale f22 etc being the example.

 

[E-195]

That weight saving and more manurabilty is not worth the increase in RCS and increase in infra red signature of the jets.
Dog fights will be a rare phenomena in the age of bvr, secondly you can still make a very manurable fighter jet with an S duct, rafale f22 etc being the example.

you are by default saying radar blockers do not work. they do work, the radar blocker also has some short comings but weight always impact specially in fighters that carry everything internally like F-22 and more volume means less space for a shallow weapons bay

 

[GodEmperorDoom]

you are by default saying radar blockers do not work. they do work, the radar blocker also has some short comings but weight always impact specially in fighters that carry everything internally like F-22 and more volume means less space for a shallow weapons bay

What is your opinion on F-35 DSI vs F-22 Caret Intakes? Which is stealthier in profile? I mean keeping aside Cost Savings, Weight Savings which yields max stealth?

 

[E-195]

both have stealth in design, DSI is preferred if the speeds you want are bellow Mach 1.6; the caret since it is flat it can use ramps as in Su-57, allowing for variable geometry intakes with ramps to generate shocks.





however caret air intakes since still use a boundary layer diverter will require a lot of RAM due to diffraction of EM waves.

However DSI has a bump these breaks the facets of the fuselage side chins



The DSI however gets the best of S duct intakes at the cost of an increase forebody drag.

The problem of caret intakes is the boundary layer diverter gap with the fuselage and air bleed systems that increase RCS due to diffraction..

The DSI intake main problem is it breaks the flat surface of the chines forebody increasing frontal cross section an acting like a sphere instead of a flat plate





see how the creeping wave when it has a gap will diffract EM waves so the same happens with the boundary layer diverter of caret air intakes

 

[randombully]

you are by default saying radar blockers do not work. they do work, the radar blocker also has some short comings but weight always impact specially in fighters that carry everything internally like F-22 and more volume means less space for a shallow weapons bay

I'm saying radar blockers cannot fully compensate for the lack of s duct, an s duct even with it's own negative will still be a superior choice to have, specially for "stealth" aircraft.

 

[helin]

View: https://x.com/Hurin92/status/1856201217627549869


View: https://x.com/Hurin92/status/1856243468839903727

 

[randombully]

S ducts are used on F-18E and X-32 and now Su-57 with radar blockers, but are less curved.
View attachment 15037

In terms of aerodynamics and weight straight ducts is better, allowing better high AoA performance.

Su-27M with canards was much more agile than YF-22 without TVC nozzles.


on single engine fighters like Mirage III, LCA or F-35 S ducts make sense, but on twin engined fighters S ducts increase a lot of weight because a single side intake feeds a single engine so the S duct needs to be more distorted than in a single engine S intake duct of Mirage 2000.

And that agile su27M has a higher chance of getting blown of by a heat seeking missile than it would have if it had a deep s duct, it would reduce maneuverability but overall still increase survivability, as your chances of engaging in bvr and wvr combat are vastly higher than dog fight.

 

[E-195]

I'm saying radar blockers cannot fully compensate for the lack of s duct, an s duct even with it's own negative will still be a superior choice to have, specially for "stealth" aircraft.

Design is an organic and holistic matter, what do I mean is S ducts are used due to different constrains and limitations.


S serpentine intake ducts exist for many reasons


If you look at the L1011 it used an S intake ducts for the single rear positioned engine for aerodynamics but DC-10 had a straight intake duct for its rear intake for weigh savings and engine performance.

F-22 has a design very similar to F-15, and YF-23 was designed with different design parameters.

YF-23 has less weapon bays than Su-57 thus it impacted its design, F-22 the same and J-20 the same their weapons bays are limited by aerodynamics and carriage capacity.

So Su-57 has widely spaced intakes and engines for allowing more weapons bays and less frontal area, reducing the air drag, increasing lift and reducing the swiveling of the jet nozzles during thrust vectoring operation thus the use of a radar blocker was imperative



YF-23 has 2 weapons bays but Su-57 has 4


What is the end result is a faster, more maneuverable jet with excellent frontal plaforming alignment. and lots of weapons.

The J-35, I can assure carry less weapons than Su-57 and on J-20 they have a very large fuselage quiet fat with horrible intake-engine fairing transition.

The Su-57 also has the side weapons bays working as winglets as those of the drooped wingtip




this helps lift while the levcon control vortex position over the wings;, Su-57 is a very complex aircraft aerodynamically speaking and has a good balance of stealth speed and agility.

Less weapons mean the need for more flights more engines means more problems for making them and more expensive thus F-35 is a much practical aircraft than J-35 and Su-57 can outgun it by number of missiles thus Su-57 can stay farther away more time than J-35 in that is similar to a Su-27 versus MiG-29 combat. the MiG-29 runs quickly out of BVR Missiles thus needs WVR combat