>Stealth
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
>Stealth
>>28877767
>Implying that isn't perfect for blending into Chinese air.
>>28877792
First post best post.
>>28877767
>BVR is the way of the future!
>It's not stealthy because of something that only the eye can see!
Pick one, Americunt
>>28877831
Stealth isn't just RCS reduction. IR is quite important as well.
>>28877767
guys guys this is further proof of chemtrails!!! CHINARRRRR
>>28877831
>>28877831
With a smoke trail like that, "BVR" goes from 5 miles to like 20.
F-22 copy
Prove me wrong
>>28878013
Yes, those canards do scream F-22, don't they?
>>28877767
China can't copycat all they want but they still cannot into engines
>>28878013
The F22 is good.
>>28877767
what causes smokey engines like that? From what I recall, early f-4's and most soviet aircraft flew "dirty" like that. Incomplete combustion, but due to what? Bad maintenance?
>>28878168
probably oil leaking if I were to guess
>>28877767
Are they coal powered or something? holy fuck
>>28878013
The FC-31 is the F-22 knockoff.
>>28878228
looks more like an F-35 desu
>>28878168
quick throttle changes on some jets leads to a lot of incomplete combustion products which get blown out the back.
>>28878228
Looks more like a F-35 tbqh family
Two engines, sure, but still
>>28878168
The bottom picture is condensation.
>>28878044
>>28878013
>>28878271
>>28878168
Incomplete combustion of fuel. The fuel isn't all burnt up by the time it leaves the nozzle.
The most likely reason is inferior metallurgy. The hotter you burn your fuel, the more efficient it is. China likely doesn't have the same kind of high-temperature alloys that the US does.
The F135 is one of the hottest burning engines ever made, which is why it's so efficient, but also why the exhaust was burning up the deck on baby carriers that could handle the Harrier just fine.
>>28878260
>>28878267
If you actually look at a picture of them next to each other, most of its features are like an F-22.
You are probably seeing the intakes.
>>28878280
That's more the J-10
>>28878288
Even the Flight High School author (The gook who is CRAZY into military aircraft and actually knows a thing or two) thinks the J-31 is closer to the F-35 than the F-22.
>>28878168
>>28878286
So about the F-4 phantom, normally the engine ran really smoky, but it was fine on afterburners.
Why? because metallurgy at that point couldn't make compressor blades handle that high temperature, but it could do so for the lining past the turbine blades. Once burners kick in it creates very high temperature combustion that burns off all the smoky residue left over,
>>28878286
To be accurate the F135 exhaust never burned up a carrier deck.
The issue was that during extended operations the deck couldn't cool fast enough.
>>28878311
No, he just repeats memes.
The reason people think it looks like the F-35 originated from the CHINA HACKS DA F-35 period.
>>28878353
baby carriers, LHD's and LHA's.
Any way the problem was that the F135 was so much hotter than Pegasus that you can't use F-35's with the same tempo as Harriers.
And that's with the lift fan blowing tons of cool air downwards. Can you imagine how badly X-32 would have wrecked the decks?
>>28878388
>just resurface the decks with more resistant materials
>>28878373
It's more likely because people have eyes.
>>28878373
>No, he just repeats memes.
You're joking right?
He makes "jokes" about thinks that requires a monthly subscription to Jane's in order to understand.
>>28878373
>>28877767
It pisses me off to no end that the chinese suck this hard. They made that bird look beautiful, but it's a goddamn mess under that nice plastic chinese exterior.
>>28878447
Not all of his jokes require knowledge of obscure trivia.
>>28878549
Of course not, but to say that he just repeats memes is wrong as all get out.
>>28877767
Jesus Christ China....
>>28878472
>F-35
inlets
>F-22
twin engines, vertical stabilizer, belly
The wings and horizontal stabilizer on the FC-31 are nearly a right triangle.
>>28878559
"FC-31 is an F-35 copy" is a meme that falls apart upon analysis.
>>28877767
Impressive
The backblast clearly shows a superior fuel used by China, only China can efficiently and effectively use the engines that are developed by Chinese researchers through blood, sweat and tears. The engines clearly has no analogue anywhere in the world. The fact that it is being compared to F-22 should make America proud.
>>28877767
Does radar detech smoke?
Didn't think so...bad b8, m8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDtBjiq3d_s
General James Martin faints when he sees the cost of the F35 on live tv.
>>28878846
>Old guy standing and talking for a long time faints
>>28878750
An analysis I'm sure you have a source for...
>>28878861
Wow, he definitely looks like 90+.
Go, have your eyes checked or put on your glasses.
>>28878774
>The engines clearly has no analogue anywhere in the world
Except Russia
>>28878880
Any set of pictures of the aircraft from the same angle.
>>28878846
>General James Martin faints from speaking for long periods of time while sick with the flu.
Because you are that desperate for a talking point :^)
Good to see burgers have been reduced to shitposting pictures from 5 years ago.
Obviously they're getting nervous about China's progress if they're shitposting this badly
>>28878735
>inlets
AND horizontal stabilizers AND wing design AND general dimensions (length, height, wingspan) being closer to the F-35 than the F-22
>>28878901
>>28878929
>AND horizontal stabilizers AND wing design
Neither the F-22 or F-35 have right triangle wings or horizontal stabilizers
>AND general dimensions (length, height, wingspan) being closer to the F-35 than the F-22
Closer as in being on the F-35's side of halfway between the size difference of a F-35 and F-22.
>>28878938
>Wow I have no argument.
Thanks for sharing.
>>28878989
>Neither the F-22 or F-35 have right triangle wings or horizontal stabilizers
You're blind if you think those both don't correspond to the Lighting's shape over the Raptor's.
>Closer as in being on the F-35's side of halfway between the size difference of a F-35 and F-22.
Yes, that would be what closer means.
>>28879011
>You're blind if you think those both don't correspond to the Lighting's shape over the Raptor's.
You are blind if you cannot see the angle of the leading edge matches the F-22's, not the F-35's.
>Yes, that would be what closer means.
Lets not pretend you were thinking it sat in the halfway region :^)
>>28879050
>You are blind if you cannot see the angle of the leading edge matches the F-22's, not the F-35's.
A single angle does not outweigh the overall shape
>Lets not pretend you were thinking it sat in the halfway region :^)
How cute
>>28878890
Russian planes did smoke, but not as bad as what you see in OP
>>28879058
>A single angle does not outweigh the overall shape
Which is closer to the F-22, as neither the F-22 or F-35 share the trailing edge shape.
>How cute
My thoughts exactly.
>>28878861
>>28878901
Wow, Fail-35 faggots really can't take a joke. And they say Spreyfags are desperate...
>>28879170
>Which is closer to the F-22, as neither the F-22 or F-35 share the trailing edge shape.
I'm being wicked honest with you when I tell you to get your eyes checked. See pic related, I have no idea how you can think the that chinese wing is closer to the F-22 than the F-35
>My thoughts exactly.
At least we can agree on something.
>>28879179
I-it's just a prank bro!
>>28879050
>You are blind if you cannot see the angle of the leading edge matches the F-22's, not the F-35's.
that's just a straight up lie. F-22 has a leading angle of 47.5 degrees, the F-35 has 55 degrees and the J-31 has between 51 and 53 degrees depending on your source since it's guess work based on photos because china hasn't officially said what it's angle is. Not only does it not match the F-22, it is nearer to the F-35
F-35 shills go and stay go, this is a glorious People's Liberation Army Air Force thread.
All give praise to the Yellow Falcon, our new overlord
>>28879467
Bask in its golden aura
>>28879482
Golden because the F-35 pisses all over it?
>>28879506
>Single Engine
You know how this will end
>>28879518
Considering the facts that despite it is two engined and x-box hueg the J-20 has a worse thrust to weight ration than an F-4E, F-101B, Su-15T, or a fucking Harrier, I'm truly terrified. Perhaps I'll even piss my pants, but not until the Chinese figure out how to match Soviet/Russian aviation engine tech, much less get within a generation of US engine technology.
>>28879518
With the Chinkshit as a smouldering crater?
>>28879558
>the J-20 has a worse thrust to weight ration than an F-4E, F-101B, Su-15T, or a fucking Harrier, I'm truly terrified.
Please, please, PLEASE source that.
I'd LOVE to know where the fuck you got information the Chinese haven't given out yet.
>>28879572
Jet-A burns much better than rice alcohol.
>>28879066
No, I mean the Chinese are literally using Russian made engines because of how shit their own are. Unless they've recently fitted the one in op's post with an indigenous design.
>>28879595
And we all know how well that goes.
>>28879572
Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the understanding that the fucking Chinese publicly debuted it at an AIRSHOW and gave several data sheets on it back in 2014.
As for sources, google the engines and weight of the aircraft. None of it is secret.
It's currently powered by WS-10Gs or AL-31Fs (which as a Soviet design has extensive official stats online).
Empty and loaded weights are 42,750lbs and 80,001lbs (untested upper limit in Chinese literature).
Now go do your homework.
>>28879607
>Makes a claim
>Tell's me to back it up for him
Literally go fuck yourself.
There is no official claim made by the Chinese as to what the Thrust to Weight ratio if the J-20 is.
None, Nada, Zilch
>>28879607
>It's currently powered by WS-10Gs or AL-31Fs
Which is it? And says who?
>>28879613
That's funny.
Here.
http://aviationweek.com/zhuhai-2014/j-20-stealth-fighter-design-balances-speed-and-agility
>>28879624
>http://aviationweek.com/zhuhai-2014/j-20-stealth-fighter-design-balances-speed-and-agility
There is no Thrust to Weight stat on there that isn't speculation. It literally says "possibly" at the beginning of the sentence.
>>28879602
Still a far sight better than the chinese ones
>>28879619
First fucking two results after wiki on google. How lazy are you?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a18758/chinas-j-20-fighter-has-entered-production/
http://www.popsci.com/chinese-stealth-fighter-j-20-starts-production
>>28879631
>http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a18758/chinas-j-20-fighter-has-entered-production/
It literally says "expected" before naming the engine
>http://www.popsci.com/chinese-stealth-fighter-j-20-starts-production
Not a single source given in the article from a "popular" site.
>>28879654
I'm sorry, are you actually suggesting the J-20 is not powered by AL-31Fs or WS-10Gs, depending on which prototype number we're talking about? Because that would be hilarious.
>>28879667
Are you suggesting that you have a source where the Chinese name what engine they have in the J-20?
>>28879630
I can't imagine how bad they are.
>>28879672
>waaaaaah! proofs! china gov never directly said!
>I'm totally going to ignore the weekly "leaks" directly to state run media because i demand proofs!
fucking idiot.
>>28879686
Yes, please, continue to base your arguments on "leaks", how lovely.
>>28879691
I'm laughing my ass off that anyone so unfamiliar with how the Chinese do business with regards to their media and government PR is so absolutely assured in his position.
Pic related.
>>28879677
If the rest of their 'indigenous' designs are anything to go by, then atrocious.
>>28879705
I think you misheard. I'd LOVE for you to continue arguing points that aren't official.
Please, continue to believe the J-20 has the WS-10, it'll make it all the more funnier in the end.
>>28877767
That's not what stealth is, you fucking turboquadruple nigger.
The j20s dumping fuel in its photo you fucking retard
>>28879759
Nope. This is what that looks like.
>>28879759
except it's not
>>28879602
Some things are not meant to be repaired too much, komrade. It's the question of philosophy.
>>28879795
Sure. Like things you sell for a 20% discount out the door compared to competitors, and then it turns out they have to replace 3 times as often. Things like that are totally not meant to be repaired.
>>28879789
dumped fuel is not usually burned, its an aardvark thing.
but the cloud is white, yes.
but I personally can't tell if the second photo is altered in gamma/contrast. It might be a fuel dump shot against the light source.
but then again these tests are usually conducted on the ground.
![sukhoi-2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JpzW3tp.jpg "sukhoi-2[1].jpg")
>>28879789
>>28879791
Superior Chinese and Russian engines do not ignite fuel.
>>28879806
on second thought, it is a fuel dump on bottom pic, since you can see the stream of kerosene ejected out of the nozzles, which you wouldn't see if it was ignited.
on top pic its really the smoke coming out, just stacked with telephoto lens.
there is smoke though, more than its conventionally accepted.
>>28878148
Hard to copycat when the best engines they can get are either Russian engines designed for high speed interceptors that have shitty IR shielding and concealment or whatever the US sold Israel last year since the kikes are happy to sell their shit to China and Russia for enough money.
Give it a year after Israel gets the F-35 and China will magically jump from not being able to make an engine for their 5th gens to having a fleet of them with working stealth and what nots.
Happens every fucking time. This is why the USSR kept up with the Jones on certain things and vice versa.
>>28878286
>so efficient
>literally took 5 refuels to do what is it's maximum range without ferry
Yeah.
No.
It did a 3000 km flight this year from Italy to the US and required FIVE in air refuelings. That's fucking disgusting.
That's the sort of shit you get with 3rd gen fighters, not 4th or better. I'd understand a single refuel to ensure any landing issues were purely base side but 5 is insane.
>>28879795
In Dec 2009, 43 RD-93 engines cost the Chinese 160million. 3.7m per engine, two per plane for MiG-29 at 7.4, three lifetime two engine replacements at a total engine cost of 22.2million, not even including extra labor and parts cost incurred in 9 times the number of total required overhauls.
Conversely, the very most expensive, small batch and recent F-110 variant in the F-16E Block 60/61 in the UAE buy was sold at 5 million apiece (400m, 80 engines). That's 5 million total for the life of the aircraft.
22.2 million against 5 million? It's not even a choice.
Soviet/Russian engines might be simpler than American designs, but they sure as fuck aren't cheaper.
>>28879821
It is clearly compression condensation, anon. It happens, especially in high-particulate high-humidity conditions (like those almost constant in Eastern China).
>>28879825
>material science production infrastructure is not the hardest variable in all this, and is instantly attainable when you buy an engine from someone and copy it
ok, anon.
>>28879831
It was the very first production Italian aircraft fresh off the line, you idiot. Of course there were strict limits on external stores (there were none) and minimum allowable fuel levels over the Atlantic.
They hadn't even operations tested the fucking aircraft to confirm there weren't any production problems. It got some basic flight testing and they sent it on to the states to get worked up.
>>28879602
>Russian engines designed specifically to be disposable
>American engines designed for reliability and repair
>MUH RUSSIAN ENGINES SUCK
No anon. You are a retard. The reason the lifespan is different is that the Russians preferred the logic that you can just tear out the old engine and slap a new one in. This allowed less build quality, cheaper materials and less maintenance per flight hour. Also allowed them to make much cheaper jets overall, hence why the 4th++ gen Russian fighters are literally 1/2th the price of the European and US models.
Both ways of doing it have their own advantages and disadvantages and both styles are prolific across the world.
US requires more basic maintenance.
Russian requires more replacement but less man hours per jet in general.
US engines are undoubtedly superior at this point in all theatres but thats more of a collapse of the USSR thing than a US STRONK thing. Russia just didn't have the resources to sink in an engine like the US did.
>>28879832
Holy shit.
Vatnik, what are you doing?
>>28879849
see what this >>28879832 anon just worked out
It's literally 4 times more expensive just to BUY THE ENGINES over airframe life, not to mention the extra cost of nine times the number of overhauls in labor and parts.
Holy shit.
>>28879849
>hence why the 4th++ gen Russian fighters are literally 1/2th the price of the European and US models.
Does that include the extra 5 engines you're going to have to buy? Because according to my math >>28879832 that adds another 17.2 million to the buy cost just in engines, not including the extra 16 overhauls.
>>28879482
>Yellow
Until CAC puts the official colour over the primer.
>>28879853
that is assuming that three replacements mentioned for some old ass polish migs is somehow a necessity for all migs, including the latest ones, or is true/reasonable at all.
Which actually requires some confirmation, since RD-33 modifications were mentioned to have service life around 4000 hours, with some being flown after 7000 hours with overhauls. Which is a lot.
>>28879849
>>28879861
To expand, the mean time before overhaul is 1000 hours for the AL-31F in the Su-30MKI. 3000 hours total engine life. That means 6-8 total engines over airframe life.
The F-15E engines, the F-100-PW-229s, by contrast, have a mean time between overhaul of 6,000 cycles (a cycle is about 1-1.5 flight hours, so 6000-9000 hours) which averages out to about 10 years of service life.
As for cost? The AL-31F is still 2/3 the price of a F-100-PW-229, in spite of the fact that 2-4 more are required over the life of the aircraft and it requires overhaul 2 to 3 times as much.
>>28879887
>since RD-33 modifications were mentioned to have service life around 4000 hours
Nope. That's the AL-31F 117S, and it's only in the Su-35, and it's not being sold for export.
>>28879814
>Superior Chinese and Russian engines do not ignite fuel.
Then what propells the plane, dumbo? Telekinesis?
>>28879900
>That's
What's?
I'm talking about >>28879832 and >>28879602
AL-31s are Sukhoi turf, not Mig
>>28879898
>As for cost? The AL-31F is still 2/3 the price of a F-100-PW-229, in spite of the fact that 2-4 more are required over the life of the aircraft and it requires overhaul 2 to 3 times as much.
I'm sorry. Screwed that up and confused MTBO and service life on the AL-31F. It should read:
As for cost? The AL-31F is still 2/3 the price of a F-100-PW-229, in spite of the fact that 2-4 more are required over the life of the aircraft and it requires overhaul 6 to 9 times as much.
Also, the cycles to hours conversion is different for different aircraft. F-15Es, for instance, require more throttle up and throttle down cycles than an F-16C, due to the F-15E having far more thrust on tap and the more frequent need to throttle back in maneuvers. For the F-16, figure closer to the top end of the range, the F-15E somewhere closer to the bottom end of the range.
>>28877849
Uh...smoke =! hot air, for all we know that exhaust could be cooler than the f-35; usually smoke happens if the ignition temperature isn't high enough to completely burn everything cleanly.
>>28879595
>There an indigenous design
No they're not. Those prototypes are both using Russian turbofans.
The only J-31 tech demonstrator is powered by two RD-93, while the old J-20 numbered '2001' or "2002" in op's photo is powered by the Saturn AL-41F.
>>28879909
You got it wrong. The engines which were upgraded from 3000 service hours to 4000 service hours in wide service were the AL-31F 117S engines in the Su-35, on tech developed for the AL-41 engine. It still requires overhaul every 1,000 hours.
The only MiG-29 engines to be uprated for 4,000 service hours are the RD-33MK engines in the domestic only version of the MiG-29M, of which only 32 examples exist. It still also requires overhaul every 1,000 hours, and it's entire service life is less than the time between overhaul for any US competitor. As it represents the latest tech, perhaps we should be comparing it to the F135 in the F-35, which has a targeted service life in the 7,000-10,000 hour range?
>>28879000 (checkered)
>>28879948
>the F135 in the F-35, which has a targeted service life in the 7,000-10,000 hour range?
>service life
Sorry, should read "MTBO or mean time between overhaul". It's late here.
>>28879887
>with some being flown after 7000 hours with overhauls
Just as there are some F100-PW-229s out there in F-16s with over 30,000 total hours before retirement. What's your point? Anon was using manufacturer ratings, not statistical outliers.
>>28879887
yfw the Indians had to rate the RD-33s in their first batch of MiG-29s for only 200 hours TBO because there were so many problems.
>>28879987
my point is that those engines do not have unusually low service life for their cost, resulting in soviet designs having a "three times the running cost of western designs", as it was suggested here. This is plain bullshit.
>>28880030
It's simple math anon. Read >>28879832 and >>28879898 and tell me why I am wrong to point out that the RD-33 would have cost 17.2 million more over the service life of the aircraft in Polish service compared to the F110-GE option.
>>28880030
Your thinking applied to Mig-15 -17 -19 and -21 era jets. It is simply no longer true. Russian engines cost way too much for this to be cost effective any longer.
>>28877792
10/10 but probably samefaggot
>>28878353
My house didn't burn down. The house just didn't cool down fast enough.
>>28880152
If the deck doesn't cool down completely between each takeoff, there's a net heat gain in that spot of the deck. Over time (22+ hours at maximum flight ops tempo), this net heat gain could become hot enough to actually begin to damage/pit melt the deck in that specific spot. It's already got a fix in coatings which promote better heat conductivity, spreading point heat differentials out more (and dissipating them faster as a consequence of more surface area).
But, what am I doing. I can't expect you to actually expend 30 seconds to think about the physics of such a thing. You're just going to shitpost like a moron anyway.
>>28880172
That's not the issue; the F-35's exhaust outright isn't hot enough to melt steel (unless you inserted that steel right into the turbine) - the issue is primarily thermal expansion and (subsequent) contraction, which causes thermal stress, cracks, etc.
>>28879904
Yes, the smoke you see is the exhaust from the pilots brain.
>>28880184
>melt steel
The decks are not coated in steel, anon. The exhaust is hot enough to damage the coating. Same with the jet blast deflectors on carriers (why the F-35 along among fighter jets actually has multiple afterburner detent settings).
>>28880172
>starts stupid semantic discussion and claims people responding to it are shitposting
>>28880194
The coating isn't the issue; well okay, there is a bit of a problem with the coating wearing away prematurely is a nuisance, but it gets scraped off and reapplied pretty much every time the ship goes in for maintenance. The main concern (due to it's potential cost impact) is about the steel deck plating and underlying structure.
>>28880207
>claiming decks are fucking melting
>is dead wrong
>should not be corrected
Also, I'm not even that anon, shitbird.
>>28880211
After a little more research, I see you are correct. I took the concrete spalling references which was the only damage mentioned in some sources to be referring to the deck coatings as well as the actual landing strips.
It also appears the fix is in not only the coatings (and mats for the Osprey), but in a slightly modified nozzle for the F-35, increasing the point heating focal diameter.
Why the fuck don't they just install sacrificial steel decks with a insulative layer over the body itself and replace it at set intervals?
>>28880242
Correct; the USMC may also be taking a leaf from the RAF / RN's book and start using SRVL (basically a super short landing instead of entirely vertical) to spread out the heat as well (and increase bring-back payload).
>>28880252
Because steel decks are heavy; the Wasp Class LHD has a 5" thick steel deck, but newer carriers have something like a 3" thick deck for weight minimization. It's easier and cheaper in the long run to just run water piping under VL areas of the deck to prevent the deck structure from heating up as much, like what they do in jet-blast deflectors on supercarriers.
>>28880252
There's not too much insulation material out there that is:
>able to withstand 1,700F temps
>take the kinetic pounding of flight deck operations (ceramics are pretty much all right out)
>cost effective in both material and instillation cost to refit 20+ ships
Remember that you need something strong enough to do combat landings with 60,000lbs+ aircraft on it for 30+ years. It's not a trivial material science or engineering problem.
>>28879179
The problem is that the satire is indistinguishable from the actual shit people say to criticize the F-35
>>28880267
I thought of active water cooling myself
But you're saying we can dump 1.5 billion into a jet but not enough shekels to get coatings for our carriers? For fucks sake, how hard can it be.
>>28880317
But, they are going to fix/upgrade the coatings to work better with the F-35. What's the problem?
>>28877792
kek
>>28880317
It's one of those problems that can jump out of nowhere and right up your asshole in evolutionary tech advancement. We've been flying jets, conventional and STOVL off carriers for 50 years, and jet engines are very mature technologies overall. I mean, the F-14, F-15 and F-22 all produce more total thrust so it's not a problem that would immediately leap out as something that needed to be thoroughly analyzed.
Of course, it's the fact that it's a single engine so the heat point is far more focused and also the fact that the exhaust is hotter, as it gets almost 50% more thrust than both the engines in a legacy F-18 out of one single engine.
Sometimes when you're dealing with incremental efficiency/power upratings in proven, mature technology systems unexpected things can jump out and bite you in the ass, even more so that new design things.
If we were building our first carriers brand new as a brand new capability alongside the F-35, it's definitely something that would have been fully analyzed.
>>28880353
The main issue is just that the thrust is directed into the deck; the F-14 and (IIRC) Super Hornet required carriers to upgrade their jet blast deflectors, and the V-22 has been causing similar heat issues from the exhaust of it's turbines, but the F-35B is produces Super Hornet afterburner levels of thrust, directed into the deck and only mitigated by half of it being cold thrust.
It was analysed prior to it going to the Wasp, but it's something that needs to be carefully analysed due to how it differs ship-to-ship (Wasp class to America class to Queen Elizabeth class to Cavour class, etc).
>>28879825
China and Russia both have gotten samples of downed fighter engines from modern builds
>>28879840
what this nigga said. Just because you have the shape of the engine, the knowledge of what its made of, and the understanding of how it works, does not mean you can duplicate the space magic that it took to build it. China tried, Russia tried, and they are still flying saturns and mig shit.
>>28878271
>J-20, Mig 1.44 meme
>>28879595
>I mean the Chinese are literally using Russian made engines because of how shit their own are.
No, They buy Russian engines because they are new in this stuff. They are currently making WS-15 for J-20 and other for CF-17 that leaves no trails, they are improving
>>28880684
They should make This board for people with IQ 100+
Get out
>>28879205
Try using actual pictures instead of drawings. >>28878735
>>28879849
If your "disposable engines" cost nearly as much as other people's "built to last" engines then you are fucking doing it wrong.
>>28880684
If you can't tell from the picture why the engine should be a bit smoky then you should probably not post that picture.
>>28881081
Are you implying it's not the same for the J-20 picture?
>>28881484
It's not.
>/k/ never heard of planes dumping fuel
Here, we see the J-20 testing single engine fuel dump.
Here, we see the MiG-29 being a flying tractor.
J-31 is equipped with the same engines
Here, we see the superiority of the WS-10 engines, made in China. No smoke, not even a trace. Incomplete fuel-burn has always been a problem with Russian engines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpJdZkn-vKY
>>28877767
You realise stealth planes are only meant to be stealthy with their radar signature
Right
>>28882463
>Here we see complete fuel burn on a fighter using afterburners.
Hmmm
>>28877767
>stealth means you can't see it with eyes
are you this mentally retarded?
>>28882741
There was no AB in the video.
But here you go again:
Russian engines - incomplete fuel-burn and no FADEC
Chinese engines - complete fuel-burn and FADEC included
>>28879831
it's called a safety factor.
They kept it fully fueled the entire trip. Seriously, first transatlantic crossing and you think they're going to be testing the max range? You think they'd take that kind of stupid risk? Why not have tankers everywhere and just have it refuel and top up multiple times?
>confusing what WAS done for safety with what was REQUIRED
>F-35 critics constantly confusing heavy restrictions of initial production aircraft in an LRIP program with the actual capabilities of the plane
>muh can't fly at night
>muh can't fly in rain
>etc
>>28879904
*sigh*...
...InsovietRussiaplaneflyyou.
>>28878286
>burnt
fuck off britcuck
>>28878286
>China likely doesn't have the same kind of high-temperature alloys that the US does.
They do. See video and pics:
>>28882463
>>28882787
It's the Russian engines that leave smoketrials. Not the Chinese ones.
The J-31 evidently has RD-93s, which are Russian engines. They are legendary in leaving smoketrials:
>>28882444
>>28882788
I love breaking these videos out.
>muh can't fly in rain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32T_YH2CQWI
>muh can't fly at night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LIsv9LJPfU
>>28880911
Okay
It's still obviously closer to the F-35, see >>28878472
>All these people who don't realize your visual detection range increases with you leave a smoke trail.
No one is claiming that smoke comes up on a radar.
But it does push BVR from 20 nmi upwards because a pilot can now call in a black smudge on the horizon for spot-angle analysis from his AWACS bird
>>28882952
Only a decade behind schedule for rain-flights...
>>28885616
source?
please show me where the plans and specs outlined that the F-35 was supposed to be cleared for rain flights in 2005
