Rethink the Radar Signature of J-20B/S and J-35

[Luigi-II]

DB Selector

DB3K

Affected DBID(s)

Aircraft 2463 5013 5454 & 4454

Summary of Changes

It was almost two years ago that my first request of modifying RCS of J-20 was denied. The reason is that we cannot trust so-called "amateur simulations". In the past two days, when I conducted the relevant search of China LPI radar, I also incidentally collected some China's research related to RAS and RAM I think I now have a stronger reason to resubmit my ticket, supported by what I think is stronger evidence.

We all know that advanced military technology is usually highly secret, and the scientific information available to us is more or less different from the state of the art of a country. As far as we know, the Chinese have made great strides in stealth technology over the past 20 years. This should be reflected in the simulation of this game.

However, what we see is that even the J-20B/S variant in the 2020s, as well as the newer J-35, do not have any RCS differences from the early J-20 version from a decade ago. I don't think it's reasonable, not to make improvement when their science and technology booming almost every day.

Still, we can't easily conclude that "the Chinese have surpassed the Americans in the application of stealth technology." However, I do not believe that they have not closed the gap as of today. In this regard, I would like to make the following request:

• [ ] Change the clean /internal loadout RCS of J-20B/S [Aircraft 2463 5013 5454] to

A-D Band: -19.9 dBsm Front, -17.7 dBsm Side, -19.9 dbsm Rear E-M Band: -29.9 dBsm Front, -27.7 dBsm Side, -29.9 dbsm Rear Same as F-22 in game. NOT THE MOST ADVANCED US self-used F-35.

• [ ] Change the clean /internal loadout RCS of J-35 [Aircraft 4454, self-uesd version] to

A-D Band: -22.2 dBsm Front, -19.9 dBsm Side, -22.2 dbsm Rear E-M Band: -32.2 dBsm Front, -29.9 dBsm Side, -32.2 dbsm Rear Same as allied version of F-35 in game. NOT THE MOST ADVANCED US self-used F-35.

The F-22 also had a RAM upgrade, didn't it? https://theaviationist.com/2022/03/20/second-chrome-f-22-new-shots/

Still wanna quote what Dr Michael J Pelosi from AusAirPower said about the J-20 prototype: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html

In conclusion, this study has established through Physical Optics simulation across nine frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype, which would preclude its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.

Sources

For Radar Absorbing Structure:

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/18/10424

SrFe12O19/LSR nanocomposites provide high radar-wave absorption in the frequency band of 11~18 GHz, achieving a minimum reflection loss of −33 dB at 11 GHz with an effective absorption bandwidth of 10 GHz.

https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A16%3A7480544/detailv2?bquery=radar%20absorbing%20structure&page=1&sid=ebsco:ebsco.com:search

The optimization analysis indicates that the sandwich structure with a two-dimensional (2D) composite lattice core filled with ultra-lightweight sponge may be a better candidate of lightweight RASS than those with cellular foam or hexagonal honeycomb cores. The 2D Kagome lattice is found to outperform the square lattice with respect to radar absorbing.

https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A6%3A6090102/detailv2?bquery=radar%20absorbing%20structure&page=1&sid=ebsco:ebsco.com:search

The maximum absorption of 6 mm‐thick composites is measured to be −15.98 dB with 1.5% CNT content. The real part ( ε ′) of permittivity increases from 2.5 to 7 and the imaginary part ( ε ″) of permittivity increases from 0.2 to 1.0 with the increasing content of CNTs. Frequencies, thickness, uniformly distribution of CNT and CNT content are the main factors affecting the RAM properties. The calculated reflection loss, for 12 mm‐thick composites, are −7 dB, −26 dB, and −34 dB for 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% of CNT contents, respectively, and the matching frequency shifts to lower frequencies with the increase of thickness or CNT content, which is in agreement with electromagetic theory and experiment results. POLYM. COMPOS.

The cutting-edge “Metamaterial” RAS research: https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A11%3A30333547/detailv2?bquery=radar%20absorbing%20structure&page=1&sid=ebsco:ebsco.com:search

Research shows that compared with the absorbing honeycomb, the reflection loss of the metamaterial absorbing honeycomb is improved by 4.4 dB in 1-10 GHz on average.

For Radar Absorbing Material:

https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A7%3A29549543/detailv2?bquery=radar%20absorbing%20material&page=1

The proposed method has been proven effective by measuring a prepared multilayer absorbing material, which shows reflectivity of -30 dB at a single frequency point and average reflectivity of -35 dB in a broad band.

https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A13%3A29549517/detailv2?bquery=radar%20absorbing%20material&page=1

Note: There are too many search results on China RAM research, dating back to around Late1990s~Early 2000s, and here are only typical cases. Stealth aircraft generally have a combination of RAS and RAM.

Welcome to use keyword search: https://www.ebsco.com/

[Luigi-II]

The category of [Modern Shaping - Lite RAM] should now be represented by KAAN and J-20A

[Luigi-II]

I am so jealous of these "former XYZ specialists" who are able to draw "solid" conclusions about a grand topic without having to provide any evidence on Quora. What do you think, my dear friend? @PygmalionOfCyprus https://theaviationgeekclub.com/us-navy-operations-specialist-explains-why-china-is-not-yet-able-to-build-a-stealth-fighter-jet-comparable-to-the-f-35/ https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-has-serious-f-35-fighter-problem-it-might-never-fix-210811

[RickDNiu]

"Although I claim time from the opposition but I'm not opposed." I've got nothing to say about cybersecurity.

[RickDNiu]

I would rather see both possibilities in game.

[Luigi-II]

I would rather see both possibilities in game.

That's just excactly why I keep the older version's and export version's RCS as it is now. What I want, in other word, is the "both possibilities"

[Siegemiester]

I think I had a similar discussion about this some time ago about the RCS of the J20 and J35, especially over the egregious fact that the J35 is barely more stealthy than gen 4.5 fighters in game when it is clearly intended to be a VLO design. Or the fact that 40 years later no non-US fighter aircraft can even match the F117, a plane designed with sliderules and who's wreckage has been captured by the chinese in 1999.

While I'd be satisfied with the early models of the J20 (ie: the 2011 prototype which had a black paintjob) having vastly inferior stealth characteristics, Production models in 2024 should easily be within the ballpark of F22s and F35s if only slightly inferior.

[Luigi-II]

I think I had a similar discussion about this some time ago about the RCS of the J20 and J35, especially over the egregious fact that the J35 is barely more stealthy than gen 4.5 fighters in game when it is clearly intended to be a VLO design. Or the fact that 40 years later no non-US fighter aircraft can even match the F117, a plane designed with sliderules and who's wreckage has been captured by the chinese in 1999.

While I'd be satisfied with the early models of the J20 (ie: the 2011 prototype which had a black paintjob) having vastly inferior stealth characteristics, Production models in 2024 should easily be within the ballpark of F22s and F35s if only slightly inferior.

In fact, from my literature search of LPI radar, I have found that the Chinese interest in stealth technology and research has been going on for at least 40 years. During this period, they continuously improve their technological level to realize the application of research results. At least judging by the rapid growth of their scientific and technological prowess.

However, due to "doubt" and "confidentiality", we cannot further judge how its application level compares to that of the US.

I'm just trying to request a representative VLO level simulation of the J-20 variant, as well as the self-used version of J-35. Using TYPICAL SIMULATION of modern VLO stealth fighters IN GAME (only F-22 and Allied version of F-35).

[Siegemiester]

I think I had a similar discussion about this some time ago about the RCS of the J20 and J35, especially over the egregious fact that the J35 is barely more stealthy than gen 4.5 fighters in game when it is clearly intended to be a VLO design. Or the fact that 40 years later no non-US fighter aircraft can even match the F117, a plane designed with sliderules and who's wreckage has been captured by the chinese in 1999. While I'd be satisfied with the early models of the J20 (ie: the 2011 prototype which had a black paintjob) having vastly inferior stealth characteristics, Production models in 2024 should easily be within the ballpark of F22s and F35s if only slightly inferior.

In fact, from my literature search of LPI radar, I have found that the Chinese interest in stealth technology and research has been going on for at least 40 years. During this period, they continuously improve their technological level to realize the application of research results. At least judging by the rapid growth of their scientific and technological prowess.

However, due to "doubt" and "confidentiality", we cannot further judge how its application level compares to that of the US.

I'm just trying to request a representative VLO level simulation of the J-20 variant, as well as the self-used version of J-35. Using TYPICAL SIMULATION of modern VLO stealth fighters IN GAME (only F-22 and Allied version of F-35).

The whole confidentiality thing is quite the copout. We're supposed to just accept the brochure claims of Lockheed Martin yet we can't take the claims of the chinese defense industry until the hardware is somehow independently corroborated by non-chinese sources.

In fact for alot of the 'future' hardware in western arsenals specs are liberally extrapolated with no hint of modesty, but for non-western hardware everything needs hard proof before its even considered to be added and quite often its just dismissed because 'oh, its just a concept mockup' as if all those future weapons systems in the western arsenals aren't just that until they actually enter service.

[Luigi-II]

Under what circumstances could the J-20's stealth capabilities make the chair of Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee "alarmed"? https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kendall-wittman-budget-adequate-china-hasc/

But expressing alarm at the stealthiness of China’s J-20 fighters, Wittman said he wants to make sure the Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program “stays on track.” He also voiced support for the CCA concept, but said it must be backed up by a sensor network “from space to Earth” that will be resilient enough to withstand Chinese attempts to disrupt it.

It reminds me of the F-35s in the aggressor squadron: https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=55497&start=45 https://theaviationgeekclub.com/first-j-20-representing-f-35-aggressor-aircraft-unveiled-at-nellis-afb/

[Luigi-II]

https://ad-aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2024-08/ASPIs%20two-decade%20Critical%20Technology%20Tracker_1.pdf?VersionId=1p.Rx9MIuZyK5A5w1SDKIpE2EGNB_H8r An interesting recent think tank report reveals new dynamics in some key technology research areas. Among them, in the field of material research closely related to stealth technology, China has shown a "drastic" lead. If this advantage was similar to that of other countries, we might suspect that "meaningless" research was padding the numbers, but when a country shows such a lead, we have to think seriously about its strength, don't we?