• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Chengdu J-20 news and analysis Part III

Hyperwarp

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
12
Another shot of the WS-10B powered J-20A (When are we going to see the fully painted version ).

EKeuCE-VAAAfj6j.jpg large.jpg
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
Considering that the first unit of J11B, which flew with AL31 in 2007 or so, still to this date flies with Russian engines while all other units since got planes with WS10 engines - I wouldn't hold by breath for that.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,283
Reaction score
2,990
Article on the stealthiness of canards versus conventional tailed aircraft by 611 Institute (Chengdu). I'll finish up translation and post pics later.


Journal of Aeronautics and Astronautics Nov. 25 2019 Vol. 38 No.X:
Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica ISSN 1000-6893 CN 11-1929 / V
XXXXXX-1
http://hkxb.buaa.edu.cn hkxb@buaa.edu.cn
DOI: 10.7527 / S1000-6893.2019.23485
Research on the RCS Impact of Duck Wing
Guo Zhanzhi, Chen Yingwen, Ma Lianfeng
Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, Chengdu 610091

Abstract: In this paper, the effects of canard wings of a canard layout fighter on the RCS of the aircraft are studied and analyzed in detail. The paper first analyzes the scattering mechanism of canard wings, and then uses the multilayer fast multipole (MLFMM) method to calculate the RCS of the whole model of the specific model. By comparing the RCS of the canard layout and the conventional layout, the canard wings scattering The effects of the RCS of the aircraft, including the influence of the canard wing deflection on the whole machine; In addition, the edge scattering of the canard wing and the effect on the slit scattering and the corresponding suppression measures were studied by experimental methods. The research results show that the canard layout can be applied to the layout design of high stealth aircraft after thecanard wing scattering is suppressed or eliminated, and its stealth performance is equivalent to the conventional layout. Finally, the guiding principles of canard wing stealth design are summarized.

Keywords: canard layout; RCS; MLFMM; conventional layout; stealth
Chinese picture classification number: V218 Document identification code: A Article number: 1000-6893.2019.23485
-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
Received date: 2017-xx-xx; Retired date: 2017-xx-xx; Accepted date: 2017-xx-xx;
Web publishing address: http://hkxb.buaa.edu.cn/CN/html/2018XXXX.html
Fund Project: National Natural Science Foundation of China (Fund Number); Aviation Science Foundation of China (Fund Number)
* Corresponding author. E-mail: hkxb@buaa.edu.cn

In the history of the development of fighters in the world, according to the characteristics of different horizontal stabilizers, common fighter layouts can be roughly divided into the following categories: conventional layouts, duck layouts, tailless layouts, three-wing layouts and flying wing layouts [1]. Among them, the duck layout has received great attention in the layout design of modern fighters.

Canard layout has a very important position in the development history of fighter layout design in China. Domestic aerodynamic layout design technicians rely entirely on independent innovation. After years of research and successful application of models, they have mastered the duck layout aerodynamic design technology. Facts have proved that the combination of duck layout and relaxation of longitudinal static stability technology can avoid the shortcomings of duck layout, give full play to its advantages in balance and increase, and help to obtain a higher supersonic balance. Conducive to focus matching and center of gravity configuration in the sub-, trans-, and supersonic full flight envelopes [2].

With the development of various electronic detection equipment, the battlefield environment is becoming increasingly complex. Stealth technology has a profound impact on the survivability and combat effectiveness of fighters. Stealth has become one of the important features necessary for a new generation of combat aircraft [3]. As the largest country leading the development of aviation technology in the world, the United States has developed advanced stealth fighters such as F-117, B-2, F-22, F-35. As we all know, stealth capability is the core technical feature of the fourth-generation fighter aircraft. According to the public information available, it can be speculated that the F-22 and F-35 have significantly improved their stealth performance compared to traditional three-generation aircraft or three-generation modified stealth aircraft. Stealth aircraft constitute a fatal advantage, and the development of stealth aircraft has become a consensus around the world. The stealth performance of fighters depends to a large extent on the design of the layout. F-22 and F-35 aircraft have adopted conventional layouts, which fully shows that Americans have mastered the stealth design technology of conventional layouts. For the domestic market, adopting a duck-type layout is a unique choice. Although adopting the duck layout can give full play to its aerodynamic advantages, the disadvantage of stealth compared to the conventional layout is obvious: the front of thecanard wing is equivalent to adding a scattering component in front of the aircraft, and The gap between the canard wing and the fuselage is directly exposed in front of the aircraft. These factors are likely to cause the stealth physical characteristics deteriorate. So, what factors need to be considered for the stealth design of the duck layout aircraft? Can its stealth ability be even better than the conventional layout?

This paper studies and analyzes the impact of canard wings on RCS for canard layout aircraft. The stealth layout design of some fighters has many factors affecting it: intake and exhaust methods, fuselage cross-sectional shape, main wing geometry parameters, tail parameters, design of the rear body coupling area, and so on. For different layout forms, these stealth design elements are the same. Compared with the conventional layout, the canard layout only adds an invisible element-canard wings. In order to study the effects of duck wings RCS, this paper first analyzes the scattering mechanism of canard wings, and then develops the stealth shape modeling of canard layout and conventional layout, and compares the differences between them by RCS simulation calculation. In order to explain the difference of duck wings more clearly, this article assumes that the stealth characteristics of canard layout and conventional layout are calculated and compared respectively under the premise that other stealth elements are the same or equivalent; then, further research is carried out through the component stealth test method. RCS suppression scheme for edge scattering and slit scattering between duck wings and body, and its suppression effect was verified.

1 Research methods

In this paper, the shape stealth characteristics of different layouts are studied by means of RCS theoretical calculations. By comparing the RCS calculation results of duck layout and conventional layout, the scattering contribution of duck wings is analyzed, and the influence of duck wings deflection on the whole machine is studied. The stealth test of the absorbing component studies the influence of edge scattering and the suppression scheme; by developing a full-size counter-slit component model, the stealth test research is conducted on the problem of the counter-slot scattering between the duck wing and the fuselage.

1.1 RCS calculation analysis method

During the aircraft design phase and the stealth optimization process, in order to quickly complete the iterative optimization of the solution and reduce the cost of stealth test verification, it is often necessary to use the RCS simulation method to estimate and analyze the scattering characteristics of the target.
The analytical method of the electromagnetic scattering problem is to obtain a strict solution to the target problem by a wave equation that satisfies strict boundary conditions. With the development of computer technology, a large number of numerical methods have been proposed for solving. These methods are generally based on Maxwell's equations.

1.1.1 High frequency calculation method

The high-frequency calculation method is an approximation method, which was widely used in the early days. It mainly includes geometric optics (GO) and physical optical (PO), which are discussed in many works. .
The geometrical optics method is a classical method to explain the scattering mechanism and energy propagation using ray management theory. The basic theory of geometric optics is to describe the reflection and refraction of electromagnetic waves on the decomposition surfaces of two different media. For discontinuities such as edges, corners, and sharp points, geometrical optics cannot be used. For complex-shaped diffusers, the calculation accuracy of geometrical optics cannot be guaranteed.
The theory of physical optics method obtains the scattering field by approximate integration of the induction field. It can solve the structure of RCS for the structures that cannot be calculated by geometric optics such as plane and single curved surface. The physical optics method completely ignores the interaction between various parts of the target based on the principle of locality of the high-frequency field, and independently determines the surface-induced current independently based on the incident field alone. Although the RCS of an ideal conductor target can be calculated quickly and efficiently, it is only suitable for conductor targets with large electrical dimensions, smooth surfaces, and weak local coupling. When the target has many edges, spikes, or local coupling scattering regions, the calculation results of the physical optics method will produce a large error.
In order to make up for the shortcomings of geometrical optics and physical optics methods, geometric theory of diffraction (GTD) and uniform theory of diffraction (UTD) have been developed successively. There are also many limitations in the application.

1.1.2 Accurate numerical calculation method

Precise numerical calculation methods are further divided into integral equation method (IEM) and differential equation method, which correspond to the integral form and differential form of Maxwell's equation, respectively.
The integral equation method includes an electric field integral equation, a magnetic field integral equation, and a mixed field integral equation. The mixed field integral equation is actually a linear combination of the electric field integral equation and the magnetic field integral equation. The mixed-field integral has the characteristics of accurate calculation of the electric field integral equation and good convergence of the magnetic field integral equation, and eliminates the problem of internal resonance.
With the development of computational electromagnetics, more mature numerical algorithms have appeared, including the method of moment (MOM) based on integral equations, and the multi-level fast multipole method (MLFMM) . For the electromagnetic scattering problem, the current industry recognized


An effective algorithm is a multi-layer fast multipole. With the rapid development of high-performance computing servers today, the multi-layer fast multipole method has been able to accurately calculate low RCS aircraft targets with electrical dimensions exceeding 1,000 wavelengths. The electrical dimensions have covered most of the problems in stealth design [5 ].

For the RCS calculation of the general stealth aircraft, the high-frequency calculation method cannot meet the RCS calculation accuracy requirements. This paper adopts the engineering calculation software based on the multi-layer fast multipole method to solve the RCS of the target.

1.2 Radar stealth test and verification

The target RCS can be obtained through theoretical calculations and experimental tests. The theoretical calculation method is more accurate for analyzing the scattering characteristics of metal shapes, but for complex shapes and targets with complex media, the calculation difficulty will increase greatly, and the calculation accuracy will be severely restricted, making the test method the main method to obtain the target's electromagnetic scattering characteristics. [6]. Therefore, the radar stealth test technology based on RCS test and imaging diagnostic test is very important.

The RCS test is divided into several types, among which the microwave darkroom test is suitable for the aircraft scale model test and the full-scale component model test. Under the premise of determining the aircraft layout plan, conducting a full-scale stealth test on a specific scattering source is helpful to accurately grasp its scattering characteristics, so as to develop a specific scattering suppression plan in order to further improve the overall stealth level of the aircraft.
The stealth design, the rational application of the absorbing coating and the absorbing structure of local details on the surface of the stealth aircraft are very important to further improve the stealth performance of the whole aircraft, but these detailed designs are not suitable for research and optimization through scale model testing. Generally, the size of the local scattering source and scattering part of the stealth aircraft is between 1 meter and several meters. If it is tested on the whole machine, on the one hand, the size is too large to implement, and the cost is high; It is possible to cover up the local RCS, and it is impossible to accurately obtain the scattering characteristics of components or detailed structures. Usually, a full-scale component model is developed to simulate local details, and a microwave darkroom is used for testing.
2 Research on the impact of duck wings on RCS

2.1 canard wing scattering mechanism

Although the canard wing is a unique component of the canard layout, its scattering mechanism is not complicated. The scattering mechanism of canard wings is shown in Figure 1.
Canard wing scattering can be reduced to three types of scattering problems:

a) Sharp point scattering: When the electromagnetic wave hits the trailing edge of the duck wing

Fig. 1 Scattering Mechanism of Canard

Diffraction occurs at corners, and surface traveling waves also form diffractions at sharp points. Sharp point scattering is a primary scattering;

b) Edge scattering: When the electromagnetic wave hits the edge of the target, the edge diffracts the incident electromagnetic wave, and the surface
Traveling waves will also cause diffraction at the edges. Edge scattering belongs to primary scattering, and edge scattering belongs to strong scattering sources. It is an issue that must be considered in stealth aircraft design to suppress its peak scattering;

c) Slot scattering: There is an inevitable butt gap between the duck wing and the fuselage that needs to meet the deflection requirements of the duck wing. The gap is relatively
long and there is a rotating shaft mechanism. The scattering mechanism is complicated and there may be multiple reflection characteristics.
Among the three types of scattering problems, sharp point scattering and edge scattering are not unique to duck wings, and are common to airfoil components, and their scattering suppression schemes are similar. Slot scattering is a unique scattering source for duck layouts. Since the duck wings are located in the front fuselage area, the gap between the duck wings and the fuselage is easily exposed to the front of the aircraft, and a targeted solution is required.

2.2 Layout Modeling Instructions

In order to carry out the RCS calculation of the layout of the whole machine, the stealth shape modeling of different layouts needs to be completed first, and the layout scheme requirements are basically feasible, otherwise the significance of research is lost. The modeling process must follow the general principles of the shape stealth design, such as the fuselage profile meets the requirements of low RCS profile design, the vertical tail is cambered at an angle, all edges are arranged according to the principle of top-down projection parallel design [7], etc. .

This article refers to the layout of the F-35 fighter, and first generates a single-engine stealth solution with a conventional layout of air intake on both sides. To
Front edge Scattering
Trailing edge Scattering
Cusp Scattering
Gap Scattering

Based on the successful design of F-35, it can guarantee that the scheme is basically established without subversive problems. Then on this basis, the flat tail was eliminated, duck wings were added to the rear of the air inlet in an appropriate position, and the sides of the body were added, and the positions of the wings and the vertical tail were moved back appropriately to form a duck layout scheme. The two layout schemes adopt the same fuselage shape, the same main wing surface and vertical tail shape, and the same shape of the side bars, in order to make the stealth elements of the angel basically the same. The RCS difference of the layout (without duck wings) makes it easier to analyze the influence of duck wings on the whole machine.
The outline model of the conventional layout plan is shown in Figure 2, and the outline model of the duck layout plan is shown in Figure 3.
The main geometric features related to the layout shape and stealth and the RCS calculation model are described as follows:
a) Due to the complexity of cavity calculation, the influence of inlet cavity cavity scattering is not considered, and a low-scattering profile surface is designed
Blocking the air inlet and the tail nozzle, without calculating the cavity scattering and the terminal nozzle scattering, and without considering the influence of the cavity scattering, the RCS level of the whole machine is lower, which is more conducive to analyzing the influence of duck wings on the RCS of the whole machine;
(A) Top View
(B) Upward view

Fig. 2 Conventional Configuration

b) The shapes of the front fuselage, middle fuselage, rear fuselage and rear strips are similar to those of the F-35 aircraft, all adopting a low RCS profile design, and the two layout calculation models share the same fuselage shape;
c) The geometry of the vertical tail is similar to the F-35. The camber of the vertical tail is 27 °, and the top-view projection of the leading edge sweep angle is 60.7 °, and the trailing edge sweep angle is 42 °. The two layouts adopt the same vertical tail shape. ;
d) The front edge of the wing adopts a medium sweep angle design. The leading edge sweep angle of the duck wing, the wing and the flat tail are 42 °, and the leading edge sweep angle of the trailing edge are 15 °. The angle on the duck wing is 8 °, and the wing has no angle on the wing;
e) Both the duck wings and the tip of the vertical tail are designed to be invisible.

2.3 RCS calculation instructions

a) RCS is solved for the two layout schemes based on the RCS accurate numerical calculation method, and the medium property of the target model is set to metal, and the application of the absorbing coating / absorbing structure is not considered;
(A) Top View
(B) Upward view

Fig. 3 Canard Configuration

b) Considering the constraints of hardware resources, the scale of the target RCS solution needs to be reduced. This paper only selects the typical frequencies of the L-band and C-band for calculation, and focuses on the RCS characteristics of the forward sector. analysis;
c) Explanation of calculation parameters: typical frequencies are 1.7GHz and 5.6GHz, pitch angle is 5 ° (corresponding to typical attack angle in cruise state), and azimuth angle is 0 ° ~ 90 °.

2.4 RCS comparison of duck layout and conventional layout

Perform RCS calculations on the above two layout models, and compare the shape RCS of the conventional layout and the duck layout to illustrate the equivalent of the duck wings. First of all, the stealth characteristics of the layout of the active surface without deflection are studied, that is, the duck wings or flat tails are in the neutral position.
A comparison of typical RCS curves in the L band is shown in Figures 4 and 5, and a comparison of the RCS curves in the C band is shown in Figures 6 and 7. Table 1 compares the statistical data of the RCS average of the front sector of the aircraft from 0 to 30 °.

Fig. 4 RCS Comparison of Two Configuration, 1.7GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 5 RCS Comparison of Two Configuration, 1.7GHz, VV polarization

Fig. 6 RCS Comparison of Two Configuration, 5.6GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 7 RCS Comparison of Two Configuration, 5.6GHz, VV polarization

Table 1 Comparison of mean data from 0 to 30 °, unit: dBsm

Table 1 0 ~ 30 ° RCS ’s mean value, dBsm

Frequency
HH polarization
conventional canard
VV polarization
conventional canard
1.7GHz
-13.26 -11.99
-14.6 -14.08
5.6GHz
-19.74 -20.42
-16.91 -15.19
According to the comparison of the above curves and average data, the RCS analysis of duck layout and conventional layout is as follows:
a) From the macro comparison of the curves, the RCS curves of the two layouts are basically the same in the large angle range of 0 to 60 °, and the RCS of the duck layout is significantly smaller in the side angle range of 75 to 90 °. This is due to the dihedral angle feature between the vertical tail and the tail of the conventional layout scheme, which is caused by strong multiple scattering. The research focus of this article is on the RCS characteristics of the front sector, and the side differences are not analyzed;
b) According to the average RCS statistics in Table 1,

In terms of segment HH polarization, the RCS level of the duck layout is 1.27dB larger than that of the conventional layout, which is mainly caused by the front duck wings. However, in the C band, the RCS of the duck layout is reduced by 0.68dB, which is Because the scattering characteristics of airfoil components are related to frequency, for the same wingtip parameters, at low frequencies and longer wavelengths, duck wing tip scattering has a more significant effect on the whole machine. As the frequency increases and the wavelength becomes smaller, the tip scattering The impact is weakened, so the results in both C-bands are comparable;
c) For VV polarization, the average level of the duck layout has increased slightly, both at low and high frequencies. The main reason is that the RCS peak at an azimuth angle of 15 ° increases. This scattering peak corresponds to the scattering at the trailing edge of the airfoil. Although the edges of each airfoil are arranged in accordance with the principle of parallelism, since the sweeping angle of the trailing edge of the duck wing is 15 °, its scattering peak is directly exposed in front of the aircraft, and the trailing edge of the wing and the trailing edge is a sweeping angle of 15 °. The fuselage has a certain occlusion relationship for its scattering peaks (see Figure 8). Therefore, the strong scattering at the trailing edge of the duck wing causes the peak scattering peak of the trailing edge of the duck-type layout to be larger than that of the conventional layout. The increase of the peak value will not significantly affect the overall RCS characteristics, and after applying the absorbing coating and edge absorbing structure, the peak edge scattering peak will be effectively suppressed (see section 2.6 "Experimental Study of Edge Scattering");
Figure 8 Schematic diagram of trailing edge normal scattering
Fig. 8 Trailing Edge Normal Scattering
d) The trailing edge of the duck wing generally adopts a sweep-back design, which is good for trimming and aerodynamic focus matching. If it can be changed to a forward-sweep design, that is, parallel to the trailing edge of the same wing, the effective shielding of the fuselage can be used. Reduce its scattering peaks
Value, and strong peaks at the trailing edge of the wing can mask it;
e) From the peak of the azimuth angle of 42 °, there is no obvious difference between the two layouts. This is because the main wing surface is the same, and the smaller peak at the leading edge of the duck wing is masked by the stronger peak at the front edge of the main wing.

2.5 RCS Effect of Canard Wing Deflection

The level of RCS without canard deflection alone is not enough to fully explain the advantages and disadvantages of duck stealth layout.Canard wings, as an important moving surface, may deflect at any time during the flight of the aircraft, and then change the stealth characteristics of the whole aircraft. Generally speaking, when performing a typical combat mission, fighters correspond to different stealth levels at different mission phases, and maintaining a high stealth state in the full flight profile is neither realistic nor significant. When the aircraft is taking off, landing, fighting at close range, or performing a large maneuver, the stealth level is not high at this time, or the RCS characteristics of the aircraft body in certain attitudes are relatively large. Although the duck wings are deflected at large angles, The entire RCS does not constitute a fatal impact.
What really needs to focus on is the cruising stage of the aircraft, at this time corresponding to the high stealth state of the aircraft, any deflection of the rudder surface should not destroy the high stealth state of the aircraft body. In general, when the canard layout fighter cruises in subsonic and supersonic cruises, the range of deflection angles of the duck wing is relatively small, about 0 to -5 °. Generally, the negative angle of the small angle is maintained. Maintain a high lift-drag ratio during cruise.
In order to explain the influence of duckwing deflection on RCS, this paper selects duckwing deflection ± 5 ° attitude and deflection 0 ° attitude for comparison of L-band calculations. Comparison of HH and VV polarized RCS curves is shown in Figures 9 and 10. Table 2 shows the average RCS data of the front sector from 0 to 30 °.

Fig. 9 RCS Comparison of Different Canard Status, 1.7GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 10 RCS Comparison of Different Canard Status, 1.7GHz, VV polarization

Table 2 RCS ’s mean value of different canard deflection angles, dBsm
Rotation angle
HH polarization
VV polarization
0 °
-11.99
-14.08
5 °
-5 °
-11.6
-12.18
-11.26
-14.56
As can be seen from the comparison of the above curves:
a) The RCS curves before and after deflection of duck wings basically match. The only obvious difference is the scattering peak of VV polarization curve at 15 ° azimuth. After deflection of duck wings, the scattering peaks are slightly wider, whether it is positive or negative. This is because the rotation axis of the duck wing and the trailing edge are not parallel, resulting in that the top projection of the rear edge of the duck wing and the top projection of the trailing edge of the wing after deflection are not completely parallel;
b) When the duck wing is deflected by 5 °, the peak of VV polarization scattering at an azimuth of 15 ° increases significantly, which causes the average level to increase by nearly 3dB. When the deflection is -5 °, the peak value decreases slightly, but the average level slightly decreases, and the scattering peak It is essentially traveling wave scattering. Traveling wave scattering is related to the polarization mode. Traveling waves occur only when there is an incident electric field component along the surface in the direction of propagation. According to the traveling wave scattering mechanism, when a conductive target is irradiated with electromagnetic waves near the grazing incidence direction, a surface current is induced to generate a surface traveling wave. If the surface traveling wave cannot be absorbed at the target discontinuity, it will cause reflection [8]. As shown in Figure 11 (a), the aircraft elevation is 5 °, and the duck wings
At 0 ° deflection, the duck wings face the incoming wave to form a grazing incidence condition. The incident electric field E generates an electric field component Ei on the surface, which excites the surface current and propagates to the shape at the trailing edge.
Strong echo reflection; when the duck wing is 5 ° forward, as shown in Figure 11 (b), the angle between the surface of the duck wing and the direction of the incoming wave becomes smaller, the electric field component Ei along the target surface becomes larger, and the surface traveling wave becomes stronger. The echo becomes stronger; when the negative deviation of the duck wing is 5 °, as shown in Figure 11 (c), the angle between the surface of the duck wing and the direction of the incoming wave becomes larger, the electric field component Ei becomes smaller, and the surface traveling wave becomes weaker, which weakens the echo scattering;
(A) The aircraft is tilted 5 ° and the duck wings are deflected 0
(B) The aircraft is tilted 5 ° and the duck wings are tilted 5 °.
(C) The aircraft is tilted 5 ° and the duck wings are deflected 5 °
Figure 11 Traveling wave scattering mechanism of duck wings with different deflection attitudes
Fig. 11 The mechanism of traveling wave scattering with different canard status
c) For HH polarization, the scattering mechanism is different from VV polarization. The electric field component is parallel to the scanning surface. There is no problem of trailing edge scattering peaks caused by surface travelling waves. The small angle deflection of duck wings will not cause the geometric characteristics of the target. Obvious changes, so before and after the deflection of the duck wing has no obvious effect on the HH polarization RCS of the whole machine, the curves are basically consistent, and the average level is equivalent.
As mentioned earlier, when a duck-type aircraft is cruising normally, its duckwing deflection is small, and it is in a negative deflection attitude, and no positive deflection will occur, so it will not damage the RCS characteristics of the whole aircraft. When the angle is not as large as ﹢ 5 °, the RCS increase caused by trailing edge scattering can be eliminated after the trailing edge absorbing structure is applied. When the duckwing deflects at a greater angle, whether it is positive or negative, its effect on The impact of the RCS of the whole aircraft will increase, but the RCS of the aircraft itself may be relatively large at this time, and from the perspective of the stealth level management of the aircraft, the aircraft is usually in a non-high stealth level at this time. In general, the deflection of duck wings will not affect the stealth of the aircraft.
Incident wave
Strong echo
Incident wave
Echo becomes stronger
E
Ei
En
E
Ei
En
Incident wave
Weak echo
Aviation science

The comparison of the above RCS calculation results shows that the stealth characteristics of the duck layout and the conventional layout are equivalent. The following tests are used to study the edge scattering of duck wings and the effect on slit scattering, and the corresponding suppression scheme.

2.6 Experimental study of edge scattering

Edge scattering features are present at the edges of aircraft wing components. Edge scattering is a kind of strong scattering source, especially after the aircraft's strong specular reflection in the radar threat area weakens, the contribution of edge scattering is very prominent. Absorbing coatings or structures can be used to suppress edge scattering. Generally, the absorbing coating is designed for high frequency, and its absorption effect at low frequency is limited, while the absorbing structure can take into account both the low frequency and high frequency absorbing performance requirements. Generally, stealth aircraft use the absorbing structure on edge components to suppress edge scattering.
In order to make the test results universal, a full-size component model as shown in Figure 12 was specially designed to simulate the leading and trailing edge characteristics of general airfoil components. The status of the full-size component stealth test includes the model's all-metal status (that is, before the reduction measures are taken) and the absorbing structure status (where the green area is the application area of the absorbing structure).

Fig. 12 Full Size Model of Edge Part

Fig. 13 RCS of Edge Part Model, 2GHz, HH polarization
The test results of the metal state are used to explain the effect of edge scattering, and the test results of the absorbing structure state are used to verify the RCS suppression effect of the edge absorbing structure on the edge scattering. The experimental study is aimed at the typical frequencies of low-frequency L-band and high-frequency X-band. The comparison of RCS curves at 2GHz is shown in Figures 13 and 14, and the comparison of RCS curves at 10GHz is shown in Figures 15 and 16.

Fig. 14 RCS of Edge Part Model, 2GHz, VV polarization

Fig. 15 RCS of Edge Part Model, 10GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 16 RCS of Edge Part Model, 10GHz, VV polarization


Table 3 0 ~ 30 ° RCS ’s mean value of edge part, dBsm

Frequency
Metal

Absorbing structure
HH VV HH VV
2GHz
-22.22 -22.08 -27.56 -27.88
10GHz
-26 -24.8 -33.61 -31.77

As can be seen from the above results:
a) In the metallic state, the scattering peaks of the edge parts are strong, and the overall average level is high (see Table 3 for the average data), which has a greater impact on high stealth aircraft on the order of 0.001 to 0.005m2;
b) After the absorption structure is applied, the scattering peak corresponding to the edge of the airfoil is greatly reduced, and the overall RCS level is significantly reduced. The X-band gain is greater, which is determined by the performance of the absorption structure. The absorption structure is at X Better absorbing performance in the band.
The above test results show that if the RCS reduction measures are not taken, the edge scattering of the wing component (duck wing component) is mainly the effect of the trailing edge scattering on the stealth of the aircraft in front. Effectively suppressed.

2.7 Experimental study on slit scattering

The previous calculation analysis focused on the shape stealth characteristics of the overall layout, and it was impossible to simulate the problem of the scattering of the gap between the duck wing and the fuselage. Aiming at the scattering of this pair of slits, this paper conducts experiments by developing a full-scale component model to study the effect on slit scattering and the corresponding RCS suppression measures.
In order to simulate the typical gap between the left and right duck wings and the fuselage, a low RCS carrier model as shown in Figure 17 was designed. A low RCS curved surface is designed to be closed smoothly around the gap area, so that the carrier itself has low scattering characteristics in the front sector. Then a full-scale metal model is developed and tested in a microwave dark room. The test target is shown in Figure 18.

Fig. 17 Gap Model

Fig. 18 The RCS Test of Full-Size Gap Model

Since this kind of effect on slit scattering is mainly at high frequencies, it has less effect on low frequencies. This test mainly tests and studies the typical frequencies of the high-frequency X-band. It is divided into the original state of the slit and the reduced state of RCS. It is used to study the effect of the original slit slit on the whole machine and to verify the suppression effect after the RCS reduction measures are taken. The comparison of the RCS curves of the two states is shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20, with a frequency of 9.41 GHz.

Fig. 19 the RCS Curve of Gap Model, 9.41GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 20 the RCS Curve of Gap Model, 9.41GHz, VV polarization

The mean statistics are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 RCS ’s mean value of Docking gap model, dBsm
Status
HH polarization VV polarization
Primitive
-20.63 -21.48
Inhibition
-38.27 -33.1

From the above results, it can be seen that before the RCS reduction measures were taken for the seams, there were strong peaks with wide angular ranges in the forward sector of the corresponding aircraft, which had a greater impact on the overall stealth of the aircraft. The test results show that the duck-wing-to-slot scattering is an important scattering source for duck-layout aircraft. From the scattering mechanism:
a) The smooth, narrow and contoured surfaces on both sides of the slit are easy to excite surface traveling waves. The geometric discontinuities formed by the duck-wing rotating shaft mechanism during traveling wave propagation will cause strong reflection if not absorbed;
b) The electromagnetic wave is incident on the inside of the opposite seam, and there are multiple reflection features between the profiles on both sides.
Such scattering problems are mainly suppressed by radar absorbing coatings with good high-frequency absorbing performance. The RCS suppression effect obtained in a reduced state is very significant, and the strong and wide peaks in the front sector are greatly reduced. Both HH polarization and VV polarization RCS averages have fallen sharply, and the average levels have fallen below -38dBsm and -33dBsm, respectively.
Therefore, by adopting reasonable RCS suppression measures, the influence of the duck-type layout on the slit scattering problem can be basically eliminated.

3 conclusions

Canard scattering is a unique problem in the design of stealth fighters with duck layout and needs attention.
The research in this paper shows that the duck wing scattering suppression scheme is not complicated. After taking measures to eliminate the influence of canard scattering, the canard layout can be applied to the layout design of high stealth aircraft, and its stealth performance is equivalent to the conventional layout.
The canard wing stealth design for canard layout fighters must follow the following principles:
1) The edge design of the canard wing is arranged according to the parallel principle of the top-down projection of the edge to reduce the number of RCS peaks, and the stronger peak of the main wing surface edge is used to mask the smaller peak of the canard wing edge;
2) The sharp point of the trailing edge of the duck wing is integrated with aerodynamic and stealth requirements to make an appropriate chamfer to reduce the sharp point scattering;
3) Apply the absorbing structure to the edges, including the leading edge, trailing edge, and wingtips, and select the performance parameters of the absorbing structure and determine the size requirements of the absorbing structure based on the stealth requirements of the aircraft for low and high frequencies;
4) Apply a wave-absorbing coating with excellent high-frequency absorption performance to the slit area between the duck wing and the fuselage to suppress the slit scattering, and develop a reasonable coating area.

References

[1] Zhang Jigao. Division of fighter aerodynamic layout [J]. Journal of Aerodynamics, 2009, 27 (5): 618.
[2] Zheng Sui, Zhan Jingxia, Cao Yuan, etc. The influence of relaxation of longitudinal static stability on the lift-drag ratio characteristics of fighter layout [J]. Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008, 40 (4): 56.
[3] Sang Jianhua. Stealth requirement promotes technological advancement of aircraft [J], International Aviation, 2015, 2: 38.
[4] [U.S.] E.F. Clart et al. Translated by Ruan Yingying, Chen Hai et al. Radar Scattering Cross Sections—Estimation, Measurement and Reduction [M].
Press, 1988: 115-120.
[5] Sang Jianhua. Stealth technology of aircraft [M]. Beijing, Aviation Industry Press, 2013: 181
[6] Xiao Zhihe, Gao Chao, Bai Yang et al. Technology and development of aircraft radar stealth test evaluation [J], Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2015, 41 (10): 1873
[7] Zhang Yong. "Parallel Design Principle" of Separate Parts of Radar Stealth Vehicle [J]. Stealth Technology, 2009, 3: 5.
[8] Ruan Yingkun. Radar cross section and stealth technology [M]. Beijing, National Defense Industry Press, 1997: 51.
Aviation science
XXXXXX-3
Research on the RCS of Canard
GUO Zhanzhi, CHEN Yingwen, MA Lianfeng
Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, Chengdu 610091, China
Abstract: This paper researchs the RCS effect on canard configuration fighter of canard. First, the scattering mechanism of canard needs to be analyzed. And then, to compute the configuration's RCS of the given fighter models by multi level fast multipole method (MLFMM). And analysis the RCS effect of canard by comparing the computational results of both canard configuration and conventional configuration, including the RCS effect on fighter after the canard is rotated; In addition, researching the RCS effect on fighter of both edge scattering and gap scattering and respective inhibition measures by full--size parts stealth testing. The test results show that the RCS level of canard configuration is almost compared with conventional configuration after the scattering of canard be inhibited, canard configuration can be applied to configuration design of stealth fighter. Finally, the guiding principles of canard stealth design are obtained.
Key words: canard configuration; RCS; MLFMM; conventional configuration; stealth





https://translate.google.com/community?source=mfooter
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
303
Reaction score
164
Article on the stealthiness of canards versus conventional tailed aircraft by 611 Institute (Chengdu). I'll finish up translation and post pics later.


Journal of Aeronautics and Astronautics Nov. 25 2019 Vol. 38 No.X:
Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica ISSN 1000-6893 CN 11-1929 / V
XXXXXX-1
http://hkxb.buaa.edu.cn hkxb@buaa.edu.cn
DOI: 10.7527 / S1000-6893.2019.23485
Research on the RCS Impact of Duck Wing
Guo Zhanzhi, Chen Yingwen, Ma Lianfeng
Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, Chengdu 610091

Abstract: In this paper, the effects of canard wings of a canard layout fighter on the RCS of the aircraft are studied and analyzed in detail. The paper first analyzes the scattering mechanism of canard wings, and then uses the multilayer fast multipole (MLFMM) method to calculate the RCS of the whole model of the specific model. By comparing the RCS of the canard layout and the conventional layout, the canard wings scattering The effects of the RCS of the aircraft, including the influence of the canard wing deflection on the whole machine; In addition, the edge scattering of the canard wing and the effect on the slit scattering and the corresponding suppression measures were studied by experimental methods. The research results show that the canard layout can be applied to the layout design of high stealth aircraft after thecanard wing scattering is suppressed or eliminated, and its stealth performance is equivalent to the conventional layout. Finally, the guiding principles of canard wing stealth design are summarized.

Keywords: canard layout; RCS; MLFMM; conventional layout; stealth
Chinese picture classification number: V218 Document identification code: A Article number: 1000-6893.2019.23485
-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
Received date: 2017-xx-xx; Retired date: 2017-xx-xx; Accepted date: 2017-xx-xx;
Web publishing address: http://hkxb.buaa.edu.cn/CN/html/2018XXXX.html
Fund Project: National Natural Science Foundation of China (Fund Number); Aviation Science Foundation of China (Fund Number)
* Corresponding author. E-mail: hkxb@buaa.edu.cn

In the history of the development of fighters in the world, according to the characteristics of different horizontal stabilizers, common fighter layouts can be roughly divided into the following categories: conventional layouts, duck layouts, tailless layouts, three-wing layouts and flying wing layouts [1]. Among them, the duck layout has received great attention in the layout design of modern fighters.

Canard layout has a very important position in the development history of fighter layout design in China. Domestic aerodynamic layout design technicians rely entirely on independent innovation. After years of research and successful application of models, they have mastered the duck layout aerodynamic design technology. Facts have proved that the combination of duck layout and relaxation of longitudinal static stability technology can avoid the shortcomings of duck layout, give full play to its advantages in balance and increase, and help to obtain a higher supersonic balance. Conducive to focus matching and center of gravity configuration in the sub-, trans-, and supersonic full flight envelopes [2].

With the development of various electronic detection equipment, the battlefield environment is becoming increasingly complex. Stealth technology has a profound impact on the survivability and combat effectiveness of fighters. Stealth has become one of the important features necessary for a new generation of combat aircraft [3]. As the largest country leading the development of aviation technology in the world, the United States has developed advanced stealth fighters such as F-117, B-2, F-22, F-35. As we all know, stealth capability is the core technical feature of the fourth-generation fighter aircraft. According to the public information available, it can be speculated that the F-22 and F-35 have significantly improved their stealth performance compared to traditional three-generation aircraft or three-generation modified stealth aircraft. Stealth aircraft constitute a fatal advantage, and the development of stealth aircraft has become a consensus around the world. The stealth performance of fighters depends to a large extent on the design of the layout. F-22 and F-35 aircraft have adopted conventional layouts, which fully shows that Americans have mastered the stealth design technology of conventional layouts. For the domestic market, adopting a duck-type layout is a unique choice. Although adopting the duck layout can give full play to its aerodynamic advantages, the disadvantage of stealth compared to the conventional layout is obvious: the front of thecanard wing is equivalent to adding a scattering component in front of the aircraft, and The gap between the canard wing and the fuselage is directly exposed in front of the aircraft. These factors are likely to cause the stealth physical characteristics deteriorate. So, what factors need to be considered for the stealth design of the duck layout aircraft? Can its stealth ability be even better than the conventional layout?

This paper studies and analyzes the impact of canard wings on RCS for canard layout aircraft. The stealth layout design of some fighters has many factors affecting it: intake and exhaust methods, fuselage cross-sectional shape, main wing geometry parameters, tail parameters, design of the rear body coupling area, and so on. For different layout forms, these stealth design elements are the same. Compared with the conventional layout, the canard layout only adds an invisible element-canard wings. In order to study the effects of duck wings RCS, this paper first analyzes the scattering mechanism of canard wings, and then develops the stealth shape modeling of canard layout and conventional layout, and compares the differences between them by RCS simulation calculation. In order to explain the difference of duck wings more clearly, this article assumes that the stealth characteristics of canard layout and conventional layout are calculated and compared respectively under the premise that other stealth elements are the same or equivalent; then, further research is carried out through the component stealth test method. RCS suppression scheme for edge scattering and slit scattering between duck wings and body, and its suppression effect was verified.

1 Research methods

In this paper, the shape stealth characteristics of different layouts are studied by means of RCS theoretical calculations. By comparing the RCS calculation results of duck layout and conventional layout, the scattering contribution of duck wings is analyzed, and the influence of duck wings deflection on the whole machine is studied. The stealth test of the absorbing component studies the influence of edge scattering and the suppression scheme; by developing a full-size counter-slit component model, the stealth test research is conducted on the problem of the counter-slot scattering between the duck wing and the fuselage.

1.1 RCS calculation analysis method

During the aircraft design phase and the stealth optimization process, in order to quickly complete the iterative optimization of the solution and reduce the cost of stealth test verification, it is often necessary to use the RCS simulation method to estimate and analyze the scattering characteristics of the target.
The analytical method of the electromagnetic scattering problem is to obtain a strict solution to the target problem by a wave equation that satisfies strict boundary conditions. With the development of computer technology, a large number of numerical methods have been proposed for solving. These methods are generally based on Maxwell's equations.

1.1.1 High frequency calculation method

The high-frequency calculation method is an approximation method, which was widely used in the early days. It mainly includes geometric optics (GO) and physical optical (PO), which are discussed in many works. .
The geometrical optics method is a classical method to explain the scattering mechanism and energy propagation using ray management theory. The basic theory of geometric optics is to describe the reflection and refraction of electromagnetic waves on the decomposition surfaces of two different media. For discontinuities such as edges, corners, and sharp points, geometrical optics cannot be used. For complex-shaped diffusers, the calculation accuracy of geometrical optics cannot be guaranteed.
The theory of physical optics method obtains the scattering field by approximate integration of the induction field. It can solve the structure of RCS for the structures that cannot be calculated by geometric optics such as plane and single curved surface. The physical optics method completely ignores the interaction between various parts of the target based on the principle of locality of the high-frequency field, and independently determines the surface-induced current independently based on the incident field alone. Although the RCS of an ideal conductor target can be calculated quickly and efficiently, it is only suitable for conductor targets with large electrical dimensions, smooth surfaces, and weak local coupling. When the target has many edges, spikes, or local coupling scattering regions, the calculation results of the physical optics method will produce a large error.
In order to make up for the shortcomings of geometrical optics and physical optics methods, geometric theory of diffraction (GTD) and uniform theory of diffraction (UTD) have been developed successively. There are also many limitations in the application.

1.1.2 Accurate numerical calculation method

Precise numerical calculation methods are further divided into integral equation method (IEM) and differential equation method, which correspond to the integral form and differential form of Maxwell's equation, respectively.
The integral equation method includes an electric field integral equation, a magnetic field integral equation, and a mixed field integral equation. The mixed field integral equation is actually a linear combination of the electric field integral equation and the magnetic field integral equation. The mixed-field integral has the characteristics of accurate calculation of the electric field integral equation and good convergence of the magnetic field integral equation, and eliminates the problem of internal resonance.
With the development of computational electromagnetics, more mature numerical algorithms have appeared, including the method of moment (MOM) based on integral equations, and the multi-level fast multipole method (MLFMM) . For the electromagnetic scattering problem, the current industry recognized


An effective algorithm is a multi-layer fast multipole. With the rapid development of high-performance computing servers today, the multi-layer fast multipole method has been able to accurately calculate low RCS aircraft targets with electrical dimensions exceeding 1,000 wavelengths. The electrical dimensions have covered most of the problems in stealth design [5 ].

For the RCS calculation of the general stealth aircraft, the high-frequency calculation method cannot meet the RCS calculation accuracy requirements. This paper adopts the engineering calculation software based on the multi-layer fast multipole method to solve the RCS of the target.

1.2 Radar stealth test and verification

The target RCS can be obtained through theoretical calculations and experimental tests. The theoretical calculation method is more accurate for analyzing the scattering characteristics of metal shapes, but for complex shapes and targets with complex media, the calculation difficulty will increase greatly, and the calculation accuracy will be severely restricted, making the test method the main method to obtain the target's electromagnetic scattering characteristics. [6]. Therefore, the radar stealth test technology based on RCS test and imaging diagnostic test is very important.

The RCS test is divided into several types, among which the microwave darkroom test is suitable for the aircraft scale model test and the full-scale component model test. Under the premise of determining the aircraft layout plan, conducting a full-scale stealth test on a specific scattering source is helpful to accurately grasp its scattering characteristics, so as to develop a specific scattering suppression plan in order to further improve the overall stealth level of the aircraft.
The stealth design, the rational application of the absorbing coating and the absorbing structure of local details on the surface of the stealth aircraft are very important to further improve the stealth performance of the whole aircraft, but these detailed designs are not suitable for research and optimization through scale model testing. Generally, the size of the local scattering source and scattering part of the stealth aircraft is between 1 meter and several meters. If it is tested on the whole machine, on the one hand, the size is too large to implement, and the cost is high; It is possible to cover up the local RCS, and it is impossible to accurately obtain the scattering characteristics of components or detailed structures. Usually, a full-scale component model is developed to simulate local details, and a microwave darkroom is used for testing.
2 Research on the impact of duck wings on RCS

2.1 canard wing scattering mechanism

Although the canard wing is a unique component of the canard layout, its scattering mechanism is not complicated. The scattering mechanism of canard wings is shown in Figure 1.
Canard wing scattering can be reduced to three types of scattering problems:

a) Sharp point scattering: When the electromagnetic wave hits the trailing edge of the duck wing

Fig. 1 Scattering Mechanism of Canard

Diffraction occurs at corners, and surface traveling waves also form diffractions at sharp points. Sharp point scattering is a primary scattering;

b) Edge scattering: When the electromagnetic wave hits the edge of the target, the edge diffracts the incident electromagnetic wave, and the surface
Traveling waves will also cause diffraction at the edges. Edge scattering belongs to primary scattering, and edge scattering belongs to strong scattering sources. It is an issue that must be considered in stealth aircraft design to suppress its peak scattering;

c) Slot scattering: There is an inevitable butt gap between the duck wing and the fuselage that needs to meet the deflection requirements of the duck wing. The gap is relatively
long and there is a rotating shaft mechanism. The scattering mechanism is complicated and there may be multiple reflection characteristics.
Among the three types of scattering problems, sharp point scattering and edge scattering are not unique to duck wings, and are common to airfoil components, and their scattering suppression schemes are similar. Slot scattering is a unique scattering source for duck layouts. Since the duck wings are located in the front fuselage area, the gap between the duck wings and the fuselage is easily exposed to the front of the aircraft, and a targeted solution is required.

2.2 Layout Modeling Instructions

In order to carry out the RCS calculation of the layout of the whole machine, the stealth shape modeling of different layouts needs to be completed first, and the layout scheme requirements are basically feasible, otherwise the significance of research is lost. The modeling process must follow the general principles of the shape stealth design, such as the fuselage profile meets the requirements of low RCS profile design, the vertical tail is cambered at an angle, all edges are arranged according to the principle of top-down projection parallel design [7], etc. .

This article refers to the layout of the F-35 fighter, and first generates a single-engine stealth solution with a conventional layout of air intake on both sides. To
Front edge Scattering
Trailing edge Scattering
Cusp Scattering
Gap Scattering

Based on the successful design of F-35, it can guarantee that the scheme is basically established without subversive problems. Then on this basis, the flat tail was eliminated, duck wings were added to the rear of the air inlet in an appropriate position, and the sides of the body were added, and the positions of the wings and the vertical tail were moved back appropriately to form a duck layout scheme. The two layout schemes adopt the same fuselage shape, the same main wing surface and vertical tail shape, and the same shape of the side bars, in order to make the stealth elements of the angel basically the same. The RCS difference of the layout (without duck wings) makes it easier to analyze the influence of duck wings on the whole machine.
The outline model of the conventional layout plan is shown in Figure 2, and the outline model of the duck layout plan is shown in Figure 3.
The main geometric features related to the layout shape and stealth and the RCS calculation model are described as follows:
a) Due to the complexity of cavity calculation, the influence of inlet cavity cavity scattering is not considered, and a low-scattering profile surface is designed
Blocking the air inlet and the tail nozzle, without calculating the cavity scattering and the terminal nozzle scattering, and without considering the influence of the cavity scattering, the RCS level of the whole machine is lower, which is more conducive to analyzing the influence of duck wings on the RCS of the whole machine;
(A) Top View
(B) Upward view

Fig. 2 Conventional Configuration

b) The shapes of the front fuselage, middle fuselage, rear fuselage and rear strips are similar to those of the F-35 aircraft, all adopting a low RCS profile design, and the two layout calculation models share the same fuselage shape;
c) The geometry of the vertical tail is similar to the F-35. The camber of the vertical tail is 27 °, and the top-view projection of the leading edge sweep angle is 60.7 °, and the trailing edge sweep angle is 42 °. The two layouts adopt the same vertical tail shape. ;
d) The front edge of the wing adopts a medium sweep angle design. The leading edge sweep angle of the duck wing, the wing and the flat tail are 42 °, and the leading edge sweep angle of the trailing edge are 15 °. The angle on the duck wing is 8 °, and the wing has no angle on the wing;
e) Both the duck wings and the tip of the vertical tail are designed to be invisible.

2.3 RCS calculation instructions

a) RCS is solved for the two layout schemes based on the RCS accurate numerical calculation method, and the medium property of the target model is set to metal, and the application of the absorbing coating / absorbing structure is not considered;
(A) Top View
(B) Upward view

Fig. 3 Canard Configuration

b) Considering the constraints of hardware resources, the scale of the target RCS solution needs to be reduced. This paper only selects the typical frequencies of the L-band and C-band for calculation, and focuses on the RCS characteristics of the forward sector. analysis;
c) Explanation of calculation parameters: typical frequencies are 1.7GHz and 5.6GHz, pitch angle is 5 ° (corresponding to typical attack angle in cruise state), and azimuth angle is 0 ° ~ 90 °.

2.4 RCS comparison of duck layout and conventional layout

Perform RCS calculations on the above two layout models, and compare the shape RCS of the conventional layout and the duck layout to illustrate the equivalent of the duck wings. First of all, the stealth characteristics of the layout of the active surface without deflection are studied, that is, the duck wings or flat tails are in the neutral position.
A comparison of typical RCS curves in the L band is shown in Figures 4 and 5, and a comparison of the RCS curves in the C band is shown in Figures 6 and 7. Table 1 compares the statistical data of the RCS average of the front sector of the aircraft from 0 to 30 °.

Fig. 4 RCS Comparison of Two Configuration, 1.7GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 5 RCS Comparison of Two Configuration, 1.7GHz, VV polarization

Fig. 6 RCS Comparison of Two Configuration, 5.6GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 7 RCS Comparison of Two Configuration, 5.6GHz, VV polarization

Table 1 Comparison of mean data from 0 to 30 °, unit: dBsm

Table 1 0 ~ 30 ° RCS ’s mean value, dBsm

Frequency
HH polarization
conventional canard
VV polarization
conventional canard
1.7GHz
-13.26 -11.99
-14.6 -14.08
5.6GHz
-19.74 -20.42
-16.91 -15.19
According to the comparison of the above curves and average data, the RCS analysis of duck layout and conventional layout is as follows:
a) From the macro comparison of the curves, the RCS curves of the two layouts are basically the same in the large angle range of 0 to 60 °, and the RCS of the duck layout is significantly smaller in the side angle range of 75 to 90 °. This is due to the dihedral angle feature between the vertical tail and the tail of the conventional layout scheme, which is caused by strong multiple scattering. The research focus of this article is on the RCS characteristics of the front sector, and the side differences are not analyzed;
b) According to the average RCS statistics in Table 1,

In terms of segment HH polarization, the RCS level of the duck layout is 1.27dB larger than that of the conventional layout, which is mainly caused by the front duck wings. However, in the C band, the RCS of the duck layout is reduced by 0.68dB, which is Because the scattering characteristics of airfoil components are related to frequency, for the same wingtip parameters, at low frequencies and longer wavelengths, duck wing tip scattering has a more significant effect on the whole machine. As the frequency increases and the wavelength becomes smaller, the tip scattering The impact is weakened, so the results in both C-bands are comparable;
c) For VV polarization, the average level of the duck layout has increased slightly, both at low and high frequencies. The main reason is that the RCS peak at an azimuth angle of 15 ° increases. This scattering peak corresponds to the scattering at the trailing edge of the airfoil. Although the edges of each airfoil are arranged in accordance with the principle of parallelism, since the sweeping angle of the trailing edge of the duck wing is 15 °, its scattering peak is directly exposed in front of the aircraft, and the trailing edge of the wing and the trailing edge is a sweeping angle of 15 °. The fuselage has a certain occlusion relationship for its scattering peaks (see Figure 8). Therefore, the strong scattering at the trailing edge of the duck wing causes the peak scattering peak of the trailing edge of the duck-type layout to be larger than that of the conventional layout. The increase of the peak value will not significantly affect the overall RCS characteristics, and after applying the absorbing coating and edge absorbing structure, the peak edge scattering peak will be effectively suppressed (see section 2.6 "Experimental Study of Edge Scattering");
Figure 8 Schematic diagram of trailing edge normal scattering
Fig. 8 Trailing Edge Normal Scattering
d) The trailing edge of the duck wing generally adopts a sweep-back design, which is good for trimming and aerodynamic focus matching. If it can be changed to a forward-sweep design, that is, parallel to the trailing edge of the same wing, the effective shielding of the fuselage can be used. Reduce its scattering peaks
Value, and strong peaks at the trailing edge of the wing can mask it;
e) From the peak of the azimuth angle of 42 °, there is no obvious difference between the two layouts. This is because the main wing surface is the same, and the smaller peak at the leading edge of the duck wing is masked by the stronger peak at the front edge of the main wing.

2.5 RCS Effect of Canard Wing Deflection

The level of RCS without canard deflection alone is not enough to fully explain the advantages and disadvantages of duck stealth layout.Canard wings, as an important moving surface, may deflect at any time during the flight of the aircraft, and then change the stealth characteristics of the whole aircraft. Generally speaking, when performing a typical combat mission, fighters correspond to different stealth levels at different mission phases, and maintaining a high stealth state in the full flight profile is neither realistic nor significant. When the aircraft is taking off, landing, fighting at close range, or performing a large maneuver, the stealth level is not high at this time, or the RCS characteristics of the aircraft body in certain attitudes are relatively large. Although the duck wings are deflected at large angles, The entire RCS does not constitute a fatal impact.
What really needs to focus on is the cruising stage of the aircraft, at this time corresponding to the high stealth state of the aircraft, any deflection of the rudder surface should not destroy the high stealth state of the aircraft body. In general, when the canard layout fighter cruises in subsonic and supersonic cruises, the range of deflection angles of the duck wing is relatively small, about 0 to -5 °. Generally, the negative angle of the small angle is maintained. Maintain a high lift-drag ratio during cruise.
In order to explain the influence of duckwing deflection on RCS, this paper selects duckwing deflection ± 5 ° attitude and deflection 0 ° attitude for comparison of L-band calculations. Comparison of HH and VV polarized RCS curves is shown in Figures 9 and 10. Table 2 shows the average RCS data of the front sector from 0 to 30 °.

Fig. 9 RCS Comparison of Different Canard Status, 1.7GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 10 RCS Comparison of Different Canard Status, 1.7GHz, VV polarization

Table 2 RCS ’s mean value of different canard deflection angles, dBsm
Rotation angle
HH polarization
VV polarization
0 °
-11.99
-14.08
5 °
-5 °
-11.6
-12.18
-11.26
-14.56
As can be seen from the comparison of the above curves:
a) The RCS curves before and after deflection of duck wings basically match. The only obvious difference is the scattering peak of VV polarization curve at 15 ° azimuth. After deflection of duck wings, the scattering peaks are slightly wider, whether it is positive or negative. This is because the rotation axis of the duck wing and the trailing edge are not parallel, resulting in that the top projection of the rear edge of the duck wing and the top projection of the trailing edge of the wing after deflection are not completely parallel;
b) When the duck wing is deflected by 5 °, the peak of VV polarization scattering at an azimuth of 15 ° increases significantly, which causes the average level to increase by nearly 3dB. When the deflection is -5 °, the peak value decreases slightly, but the average level slightly decreases, and the scattering peak It is essentially traveling wave scattering. Traveling wave scattering is related to the polarization mode. Traveling waves occur only when there is an incident electric field component along the surface in the direction of propagation. According to the traveling wave scattering mechanism, when a conductive target is irradiated with electromagnetic waves near the grazing incidence direction, a surface current is induced to generate a surface traveling wave. If the surface traveling wave cannot be absorbed at the target discontinuity, it will cause reflection [8]. As shown in Figure 11 (a), the aircraft elevation is 5 °, and the duck wings
At 0 ° deflection, the duck wings face the incoming wave to form a grazing incidence condition. The incident electric field E generates an electric field component Ei on the surface, which excites the surface current and propagates to the shape at the trailing edge.
Strong echo reflection; when the duck wing is 5 ° forward, as shown in Figure 11 (b), the angle between the surface of the duck wing and the direction of the incoming wave becomes smaller, the electric field component Ei along the target surface becomes larger, and the surface traveling wave becomes stronger. The echo becomes stronger; when the negative deviation of the duck wing is 5 °, as shown in Figure 11 (c), the angle between the surface of the duck wing and the direction of the incoming wave becomes larger, the electric field component Ei becomes smaller, and the surface traveling wave becomes weaker, which weakens the echo scattering;
(A) The aircraft is tilted 5 ° and the duck wings are deflected 0
(B) The aircraft is tilted 5 ° and the duck wings are tilted 5 °.
(C) The aircraft is tilted 5 ° and the duck wings are deflected 5 °
Figure 11 Traveling wave scattering mechanism of duck wings with different deflection attitudes
Fig. 11 The mechanism of traveling wave scattering with different canard status
c) For HH polarization, the scattering mechanism is different from VV polarization. The electric field component is parallel to the scanning surface. There is no problem of trailing edge scattering peaks caused by surface travelling waves. The small angle deflection of duck wings will not cause the geometric characteristics of the target. Obvious changes, so before and after the deflection of the duck wing has no obvious effect on the HH polarization RCS of the whole machine, the curves are basically consistent, and the average level is equivalent.
As mentioned earlier, when a duck-type aircraft is cruising normally, its duckwing deflection is small, and it is in a negative deflection attitude, and no positive deflection will occur, so it will not damage the RCS characteristics of the whole aircraft. When the angle is not as large as ﹢ 5 °, the RCS increase caused by trailing edge scattering can be eliminated after the trailing edge absorbing structure is applied. When the duckwing deflects at a greater angle, whether it is positive or negative, its effect on The impact of the RCS of the whole aircraft will increase, but the RCS of the aircraft itself may be relatively large at this time, and from the perspective of the stealth level management of the aircraft, the aircraft is usually in a non-high stealth level at this time. In general, the deflection of duck wings will not affect the stealth of the aircraft.
Incident wave
Strong echo
Incident wave
Echo becomes stronger
E
Ei
En
E
Ei
En
Incident wave
Weak echo
Aviation science

The comparison of the above RCS calculation results shows that the stealth characteristics of the duck layout and the conventional layout are equivalent. The following tests are used to study the edge scattering of duck wings and the effect on slit scattering, and the corresponding suppression scheme.

2.6 Experimental study of edge scattering

Edge scattering features are present at the edges of aircraft wing components. Edge scattering is a kind of strong scattering source, especially after the aircraft's strong specular reflection in the radar threat area weakens, the contribution of edge scattering is very prominent. Absorbing coatings or structures can be used to suppress edge scattering. Generally, the absorbing coating is designed for high frequency, and its absorption effect at low frequency is limited, while the absorbing structure can take into account both the low frequency and high frequency absorbing performance requirements. Generally, stealth aircraft use the absorbing structure on edge components to suppress edge scattering.
In order to make the test results universal, a full-size component model as shown in Figure 12 was specially designed to simulate the leading and trailing edge characteristics of general airfoil components. The status of the full-size component stealth test includes the model's all-metal status (that is, before the reduction measures are taken) and the absorbing structure status (where the green area is the application area of the absorbing structure).

Fig. 12 Full Size Model of Edge Part

Fig. 13 RCS of Edge Part Model, 2GHz, HH polarization
The test results of the metal state are used to explain the effect of edge scattering, and the test results of the absorbing structure state are used to verify the RCS suppression effect of the edge absorbing structure on the edge scattering. The experimental study is aimed at the typical frequencies of low-frequency L-band and high-frequency X-band. The comparison of RCS curves at 2GHz is shown in Figures 13 and 14, and the comparison of RCS curves at 10GHz is shown in Figures 15 and 16.

Fig. 14 RCS of Edge Part Model, 2GHz, VV polarization

Fig. 15 RCS of Edge Part Model, 10GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 16 RCS of Edge Part Model, 10GHz, VV polarization


Table 3 0 ~ 30 ° RCS ’s mean value of edge part, dBsm

Frequency
Metal

Absorbing structure
HH VV HH VV
2GHz
-22.22 -22.08 -27.56 -27.88
10GHz
-26 -24.8 -33.61 -31.77

As can be seen from the above results:
a) In the metallic state, the scattering peaks of the edge parts are strong, and the overall average level is high (see Table 3 for the average data), which has a greater impact on high stealth aircraft on the order of 0.001 to 0.005m2;
b) After the absorption structure is applied, the scattering peak corresponding to the edge of the airfoil is greatly reduced, and the overall RCS level is significantly reduced. The X-band gain is greater, which is determined by the performance of the absorption structure. The absorption structure is at X Better absorbing performance in the band.
The above test results show that if the RCS reduction measures are not taken, the edge scattering of the wing component (duck wing component) is mainly the effect of the trailing edge scattering on the stealth of the aircraft in front. Effectively suppressed.

2.7 Experimental study on slit scattering

The previous calculation analysis focused on the shape stealth characteristics of the overall layout, and it was impossible to simulate the problem of the scattering of the gap between the duck wing and the fuselage. Aiming at the scattering of this pair of slits, this paper conducts experiments by developing a full-scale component model to study the effect on slit scattering and the corresponding RCS suppression measures.
In order to simulate the typical gap between the left and right duck wings and the fuselage, a low RCS carrier model as shown in Figure 17 was designed. A low RCS curved surface is designed to be closed smoothly around the gap area, so that the carrier itself has low scattering characteristics in the front sector. Then a full-scale metal model is developed and tested in a microwave dark room. The test target is shown in Figure 18.

Fig. 17 Gap Model

Fig. 18 The RCS Test of Full-Size Gap Model

Since this kind of effect on slit scattering is mainly at high frequencies, it has less effect on low frequencies. This test mainly tests and studies the typical frequencies of the high-frequency X-band. It is divided into the original state of the slit and the reduced state of RCS. It is used to study the effect of the original slit slit on the whole machine and to verify the suppression effect after the RCS reduction measures are taken. The comparison of the RCS curves of the two states is shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20, with a frequency of 9.41 GHz.

Fig. 19 the RCS Curve of Gap Model, 9.41GHz, HH polarization

Fig. 20 the RCS Curve of Gap Model, 9.41GHz, VV polarization

The mean statistics are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 RCS ’s mean value of Docking gap model, dBsm
Status
HH polarization VV polarization
Primitive
-20.63 -21.48
Inhibition
-38.27 -33.1

From the above results, it can be seen that before the RCS reduction measures were taken for the seams, there were strong peaks with wide angular ranges in the forward sector of the corresponding aircraft, which had a greater impact on the overall stealth of the aircraft. The test results show that the duck-wing-to-slot scattering is an important scattering source for duck-layout aircraft. From the scattering mechanism:
a) The smooth, narrow and contoured surfaces on both sides of the slit are easy to excite surface traveling waves. The geometric discontinuities formed by the duck-wing rotating shaft mechanism during traveling wave propagation will cause strong reflection if not absorbed;
b) The electromagnetic wave is incident on the inside of the opposite seam, and there are multiple reflection features between the profiles on both sides.
Such scattering problems are mainly suppressed by radar absorbing coatings with good high-frequency absorbing performance. The RCS suppression effect obtained in a reduced state is very significant, and the strong and wide peaks in the front sector are greatly reduced. Both HH polarization and VV polarization RCS averages have fallen sharply, and the average levels have fallen below -38dBsm and -33dBsm, respectively.
Therefore, by adopting reasonable RCS suppression measures, the influence of the duck-type layout on the slit scattering problem can be basically eliminated.

3 conclusions

Canard scattering is a unique problem in the design of stealth fighters with duck layout and needs attention.
The research in this paper shows that the duck wing scattering suppression scheme is not complicated. After taking measures to eliminate the influence of canard scattering, the canard layout can be applied to the layout design of high stealth aircraft, and its stealth performance is equivalent to the conventional layout.
The canard wing stealth design for canard layout fighters must follow the following principles:
1) The edge design of the canard wing is arranged according to the parallel principle of the top-down projection of the edge to reduce the number of RCS peaks, and the stronger peak of the main wing surface edge is used to mask the smaller peak of the canard wing edge;
2) The sharp point of the trailing edge of the duck wing is integrated with aerodynamic and stealth requirements to make an appropriate chamfer to reduce the sharp point scattering;
3) Apply the absorbing structure to the edges, including the leading edge, trailing edge, and wingtips, and select the performance parameters of the absorbing structure and determine the size requirements of the absorbing structure based on the stealth requirements of the aircraft for low and high frequencies;
4) Apply a wave-absorbing coating with excellent high-frequency absorption performance to the slit area between the duck wing and the fuselage to suppress the slit scattering, and develop a reasonable coating area.

References

[1] Zhang Jigao. Division of fighter aerodynamic layout [J]. Journal of Aerodynamics, 2009, 27 (5): 618.
[2] Zheng Sui, Zhan Jingxia, Cao Yuan, etc. The influence of relaxation of longitudinal static stability on the lift-drag ratio characteristics of fighter layout [J]. Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008, 40 (4): 56.
[3] Sang Jianhua. Stealth requirement promotes technological advancement of aircraft [J], International Aviation, 2015, 2: 38.
[4] [U.S.] E.F. Clart et al. Translated by Ruan Yingying, Chen Hai et al. Radar Scattering Cross Sections—Estimation, Measurement and Reduction [M].
Press, 1988: 115-120.
[5] Sang Jianhua. Stealth technology of aircraft [M]. Beijing, Aviation Industry Press, 2013: 181
[6] Xiao Zhihe, Gao Chao, Bai Yang et al. Technology and development of aircraft radar stealth test evaluation [J], Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2015, 41 (10): 1873
[7] Zhang Yong. "Parallel Design Principle" of Separate Parts of Radar Stealth Vehicle [J]. Stealth Technology, 2009, 3: 5.
[8] Ruan Yingkun. Radar cross section and stealth technology [M]. Beijing, National Defense Industry Press, 1997: 51.
Aviation science
XXXXXX-3
Research on the RCS of Canard
GUO Zhanzhi, CHEN Yingwen, MA Lianfeng
Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, Chengdu 610091, China
Abstract: This paper researchs the RCS effect on canard configuration fighter of canard. First, the scattering mechanism of canard needs to be analyzed. And then, to compute the configuration's RCS of the given fighter models by multi level fast multipole method (MLFMM). And analysis the RCS effect of canard by comparing the computational results of both canard configuration and conventional configuration, including the RCS effect on fighter after the canard is rotated; In addition, researching the RCS effect on fighter of both edge scattering and gap scattering and respective inhibition measures by full--size parts stealth testing. The test results show that the RCS level of canard configuration is almost compared with conventional configuration after the scattering of canard be inhibited, canard configuration can be applied to configuration design of stealth fighter. Finally, the guiding principles of canard stealth design are obtained.
Key words: canard configuration; RCS; MLFMM; conventional configuration; stealth


https://translate.google.com/community?source=mfooter
interesting but canards are also position related, the ideal canard is above wing level like in Rafale, J-20 then needs dihedral in the canards creating an additional reflecting surface, furthermore a delta canard like that of the viggen AJ-37 is the best one for vortex creation but at low AoA this canard generates more drag so canards tent to have slightly less swept than a very high swept delta.
1577707914423.png
On J-20 the canard pushes the wing position further aft increasing its relative size, ideally the wing should be further forward and then the canard can be positioned like Eurofighter typhoon on the forebody nose for low drag, but in the chinese machine J-20 that is not possible.

So while is possible to improve the RCS of its canards the general aerodynamic result is poor, and even its dihedral on the canards will increase its RCS, the F-22 and F-35 designers also did study canards but these were discarded because in reality the compromises in aerodynamic do exist and the Russians used LEVCONs to avoid such penalties, thus a LEVCON is far far much better solution than canards.

The J-20 uses old solutions, on F-22 TVC nozzles basically fix any disadvantage of the conventional design, the LEVCON fixes two main drawbacks canards have, first it is part of the wing, second it controls the vortex like a canard would do in aircraft like Su-37, but without the additional problem position canards generate, controlling the position of the vortex means basically pitching or rolling with much more freedom than with a canard with lesss compromises between aerodynamics and RCS
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
351
Not sure a lot of that makes much sense.
You can’t divorce a specific canard design and position from the overall design, not aware of any “ideal canard” in that context.
Sounds more like parroting non-factual pro-Su57 talking points while pushing some weird kind of anti-J20 agenda.
I really don’t care about the J-20 but let’s try to keep postings at least somewhat factual.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
303
Reaction score
164
Not sure a lot of that makes much sense.
You can’t divorce a specific canard design and position from the overall design, not aware of any “ideal canard” in that context.
Sounds more like parroting non-factual pro-Su57 talking points while pushing some weird kind of anti-J20 agenda.
I really don’t care about the J-20 but let’s try to keep postings at least somewhat factual.
actually read aerodynamics of Rafale and you will understand, your anti-Russian stance does not make a good explanation of what are its advantages among them is the asymmetrical use of lecvons for roll which basically means different pitch control of each wing, without reduced lift at low AoA flight of the canard wing combination and without compromises such as positioning the canard above wing level or closer to the wing, basically avoiding all the disadvantages of canards remember Su-37 had canards but Su-57 has not but has much better aerodynamics, in fact Su-57 does not have ventral fins contrary the J-20 or Su-37 increasing stealth.


In fact if you want i can give at least 10 aerodynamic studies that prove my points, if you leave your anti-russian bias you will start to see how great the idea of Levcons are, and how advanced is Su-57, at least in aerodynamics is the best 5th generation fighter now, and you will see J-20 has drawbacks that any honest person can see
 
Last edited:

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
441
..
In fact if you want i can give at least 10 aerodynamic studies that prove my points, if you leave your anti-russian bias you will start to see how great the idea of Levcons are, and how advanced is Su-57, at least in aerodynamics is the best 5th generation fighter now, and you will see J-20 has drawbacks that any honest person can see

NO, please not again! :mad:

J-20A + WS-10B - 20191229 - 2 part.JPG
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
316
Reaction score
145
..
In fact if you want i can give at least 10 aerodynamic studies that prove my points, if you leave your anti-russian bias you will start to see how great the idea of Levcons are, and how advanced is Su-57, at least in aerodynamics is the best 5th generation fighter now, and you will see J-20 has drawbacks that any honest person can see

NO, please not again! :mad:
Damn it, I go away, come back 3 months later, and the same RCS/aerodynamics arguments are still raging, so much hate for a little bit of black paint......

Anyone want my 38 page summary as to why it should be white paint?????
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,805
Reaction score
247
Damn it, I go away, come back 3 months later, and the same RCS/aerodynamics arguments are still raging, so much hate for a little bit of black paint......

Anyone want my 38 page summary as to why it should be white paint?????
Don’t be daft, it’s not supposed to be either black or white. It’s supposed to be gray, and according to the Have Glass paint scheme the proper shade is... ;)

Same internet, different day.
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
316
Reaction score
145
Damn it, I go away, come back 3 months later, and the same RCS/aerodynamics arguments are still raging, so much hate for a little bit of black paint......

Anyone want my 38 page summary as to why it should be white paint?????
Don’t be daft, it’s not supposed to be either black or white. It’s supposed to be gray, and according to the Have Glass paint scheme the proper shade is... ;)

Same internet, different day.
one mans grey is another mans battleship
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
303
Reaction score
164
..
In fact if you want i can give at least 10 aerodynamic studies that prove my points, if you leave your anti-russian bias you will start to see how great the idea of Levcons are, and how advanced is Su-57, at least in aerodynamics is the best 5th generation fighter now, and you will see J-20 has drawbacks that any honest person can see

NO, please not again! :mad:

View attachment 623963
take it like a good advice not everyone is interested in counting bort numbers, that is good, true, counting bort numbers is good, recently in Japan in one of the most popular magazines they made an analysis on the 2020 February issue and they said China only has 10 J-20s probably operational aircraft, regardless if it is an accurate figure or not it shows how inaccurate picture analysis to find bort numbers is.

Aerodynamic analysis can not give also the whole picture, but you can find at least the ideas behind the design, the J-20 has old ideas, canards do have limitations in RCS thus the latest French-german and the British or Japanese concepts lack them, to think the Chinese paper is the last word is very simplistic because the same studies were made in other countries and canards have known constraints regardless you understand or not aerodynamics or you use them or not well it is a fact J-20 is a 1990s concept which has been already surpassed, yes it is much modern than a late 1960s or early 1970s design concept like F-15 or Su-27, or a 1980s Rafale or Lavi concept, but for a 2020 concept such as the latest British 6th generation fighter, well it is old, thus the document posted by overscan still does not rule as the latest word in aircraft concept design, people liked my critic or not well surely i do not care, the fact is all designs have design ideas related to a time period, like F-86 is a 1940s concept, MiG-21 a 1950s concept, well J-20 is a late 1990s concept already surpassed by new aerodynamic concepts such Levcons, people want to see that or not well it is personal but the latest trend in 6th generation fighters are deleting tails either aft tails or foretails, and there are reasons and it is basically RCS considerations.

Be open saying not again is rude, is like i say why all the J-20 thread have to counting numbers just to please your interests? if i was the moderator i would say not again counting numbers so boring, but nor me or you own the thread in order to be polite we should respect others i will not participate beyond what the flow of ideas are in the thread but i suggest you be as equally respectful and kindly i ask you stop harassing me please too the threads are not your property you also make them bore if you only try to please your interests.
 
Last edited:

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
441
take it like a good advice not everyone is interested in counting bort numbers, that is good, true, counting bort numbers is good, recently in Japan in one of the most popular magazines they made an analysis on the 2020 February issue and they said China only has 10 J-20s probably operational aircraft, regardless if it is an accurate figure or not it shows how inaccurate picture analysis to find bort numbers is.

Aerodynamic analysis can not give also the whole picture, but you can find at least the ideas behind the design, the J-20 has old ideas, canards do have limitations in RCS thus the latest French-german and the British or Japanese concepts lack them, to think the Chinese paper is the last word is very simplistic because the same studies were made in other countries and canards have known constraints regardless you understand or not aerodynamics or you use them or not well it is a fact J-20 is a 1990s concept which has been already surpassed, yes it is much modern than a late 1960s or early 1970s design concept like F-15 or Su-27, or a 1980s Rafale or Lavi concept, but for a 2020 concept such as the latest British 6th generation fighter, well it is old, thus the document posted by overscan still does not rule as the latest word in aircraft concept design, people liked my critic or not well surely i do not care, the fact is all designs have design ideas related to a time period, like F-86 is a 1940s concept, MiG-21 a 1950s concept, well J-20 is a late 1990s concept already surpassed by new aerodynamic concepts such Levcons, people want to see that or not well it is personal but the latest trend in 6th generation fighters are deleting tails either aft tails or foretails, and there are reasons and it is basically RCS considerations.

Be open saying not again is rude, is like i say why all the J-20 thread have to counting numbers just to please your interests? if i was the moderator i would say not again counting numbers so boring, but nor me or you own the thread in order to be polite we should respect others i will not participate beyond what the flow of ideas are in the thread but i suggest you be as equally respectful and kindly i ask you stop harassing me please too the threads are not your property you also make them bore if you only try to please your interests.

No, there is one important difference: Indeed I am too much interested in serial numbers, construction numbers and detailed close-up photographs - maybe even annoying to others - but I don't post endless pages of lecture-like only to convince anyone on my opinion. Additionally, even more in contrast to You I do not re-open this can of worms only to lecture again and again and most of all I don't mix it with personnel issues like "any honest person can see", what directly implies than anyone, who does not agree with You is dishonest, especially if several other members with much more knowledge in aerodynamics and stealth have proven You wrong.

Therefore: No thanks, not again... just accept like others - including me - that there are other opinions out there and that between your world of black & white only there are many shades of grey in between. So in short: Not again this endless list of arguments; we all read them.


By the way just to stay on topic: Why don't you post this Japanese analysis, on why the PLAAF has only ten J-20s operational?! That would be something worth to discuss.

Best and happy new year with a great shot right from the dragon's nest.

J-20A + WS-10B 2x - 20191231 - 1.jpg
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
441
...
By the way just to stay on topic: Why don't you post this Japanese analysis, on why the PLAAF has only ten J-20s operational?! That would be something worth to discuss.
...
Now at least 18 individual ones are confirmed by their serial number !
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,198
Reaction score
861
Personal discussions can and should be argued out via PM or email, not in via posts in the thread. It's much less
interesting to other members, than many would think ...
And the theme here is the Chengdu J-20, so the appropriate personal pronoun is "it", not "you" or "me" !
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
526
Reaction score
218
Given the Chinese access to other programs, one can argue that they see a merit in the layout to solve problem that cant be solved otherwise. Might as well wait for the answer to reveal itself.
---

More than that.. does any weight estimates released so far ? like say Operating empty weight.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
We haven't had OEW published even for j10 in its export variant. I don't think we'll see such figure disclosed for j20 for at least a decade.
 

helmutkohl

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
206
Reaction score
202
We haven't had OEW published even for j10 in its export variant. I don't think we'll see such figure disclosed for j20 for at least a decade.
on a related note.. will the J-10 ever be exported? we know China is open to it, but seems like there's no demand for it
customers seem to want the JF-17 instead and perhaps one of the stealth planes.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
Impossible to say whether it will ever be exported, as the future is not set. Certainly the J-10CE variant meant for export only appeared in the brochures recently. And the domestic engine is to be put into mass service on PLAAF planes. So I wouldn't expect domestic engines to be offered for export variant for another year or so. Without the domestic engine, J-10 has weaker chances for export, as Russia always has a say in any possible contract.

I'd say we will eventually see some sales, but it may not be tomorrow, so to speak, and I don't see hundreds of them sold over the next few decades. Perhaps several dozen? Reason being that the number of countries that might be interested in somewhat limited. First off, all countries that are western aligned are unlikely to buy it. Then, of all the countries remaining, a lot of them don't have the money. Those that do have some money but are still fairly pressed for money make up the most of those remaining countries and are more inclined to go for JF-17 or even cheaper planes. Than there are some countries that could afford the plane and do have the need for such a plane but are perhaps more aligned towards Russia, so they'll rather buy their planes instead. And by that point we're talking perhaps of half a dozen countries remaining. Some of which are even rich enough to skip the J10 and go straight for something more advanced from China, like a FC-31 based design.
 

helmutkohl

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
206
Reaction score
202
Impossible to say whether it will ever be exported, as the future is not set. Certainly the J-10CE variant meant for export only appeared in the brochures recently. And the domestic engine is to be put into mass service on PLAAF planes. So I wouldn't expect domestic engines to be offered for export variant for another year or so. Without the domestic engine, J-10 has weaker chances for export, as Russia always has a say in any possible contract.

I'd say we will eventually see some sales, but it may not be tomorrow, so to speak, and I don't see hundreds of them sold over the next few decades. Perhaps several dozen? Reason being that the number of countries that might be interested in somewhat limited. First off, all countries that are western aligned are unlikely to buy it. Then, of all the countries remaining, a lot of them don't have the money. Those that do have some money but are still fairly pressed for money make up the most of those remaining countries and are more inclined to go for JF-17 or even cheaper planes. Than there are some countries that could afford the plane and do have the need for such a plane but are perhaps more aligned towards Russia, so they'll rather buy their planes instead. And by that point we're talking perhaps of half a dozen countries remaining. Some of which are even rich enough to skip the J10 and go straight for something more advanced from China, like a FC-31 based design.
I had the same exact sentiment as yours. Those that have smaller budgets will go for JF-17. Those that got bigger, will aim for the FC-31.
especially since the JF-17 seems to had some good success recently in Pakistan.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
711
Some "Western aligned" countries could be interested by the cost of the airplane reaching performances capabilities at a low purchase price for air policing missions.
Look at a country like Austria. They fly (flew to be exact) Saab antics trainer at certainly a significant price when they could mull such plane at a better mission efficiency for the same budget.
To me Teja should take those market but the operational constraints and political bias would certainly open opportunities for a Chinese Delta.
It's not like "western aligned" countries never did such (Migs).
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
351
Some "Western aligned" countries could be interested by the cost of the airplane reaching performances capabilities at a low purchase price for air policing missions.
Look at a country like Austria. They fly (flew to be exact) Saab antics trainer at certainly a significant price when they could mull such plane at a better mission efficiency for the same budget.
To me Teja should take those market but the operational constraints and political bias would certainly open opportunities for a Chinese Delta.
It's not like "western aligned" countries never did such (Migs).
Is that really a remotely realistic or likely proposition?
And increasingly drifting off topic (J-20).
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
711
It substantiated the theme above related to foreign sale in western countries. I am not sure that it could be classified as off-topic but obviously I would gladly adhere mod's opinion.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
303
Reaction score
164
By the way just to stay on topic: Why don't you post this Japanese analysis, on why the PLAAF has only ten J-20s operational?! That would be something worth to discuss.
...


Now at least 18 individual ones are confirmed by their serial number !
1578024995449.png

Consider you will need to read this magazine on the article world's fighters 2020, like i said regardless the accuracy it shows the difficulty of getting an accurate number.

https://www.amazon.co.jp/J-Wings-ジェイウイング-2020年2月号/dp/B082BVCQNF
 
Last edited:

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
441
By the way just to stay on topic: Why don't you post this Japanese analysis, on why the PLAAF has only ten J-20s operational?! That would be something worth to discuss.
...


Now at least 18 individual ones are confirmed by their serial number !
View attachment 624096

Consider you will need to read this magazine on the article world's fighters 2020, like i said regardless the accuracy it shows the difficulty of getting an accurate number.

https://www.amazon.co.jp/J-Wings-ジェイウイング-2020年2月号/dp/B082BVCQNF

Thanks for the reply but I'm sure you know that I'm not able to read Japanese and I'm sure I'm not alone here.

Therefore please enlighten us with a summary or at leat explanation, why they found aot that there is a"difficulty of getting an accurate numbers"? So either they rely on old data and have not all 18 individual J-20s in their list, or they assume them to have only 10 operational but are faking them by renumbering to higher numbers ... or why?
And that please - as per the forum's rules - in English.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
303
Reaction score
164
Thanks for the reply but I'm sure you know that I'm not able to read Japanese and I'm sure I'm not alone here.

Therefore please enlighten us with a summary or at leat explanation, why they found aot that there is a"difficulty of getting an accurate numbers"? So either they rely on old data and have not all 18 individual J-20s in their list, or they assume them to have only 10 operational but are faking them by renumbering to higher numbers ... or why?
And that please - as per the forum's rules - in English.
I did not buy the magazine, so physically I do not have it, I was in the subway waiting for my daughter, when i gave a brief reading to the article where they have three sections: 3rd generations fighters MiG-23 or F-4J, fourth generations fighters F-15J, F-2 and Su-27/J-11, and fifth generation J-20, F-35 basically all the aircraft in operation in the JSDF and main world powers, the magazine is a really good one if you are interested in knowing about japanese airspace industry, for example they have in the January issue the test pilots of the Japanese air force and obviously about the Shinshin and F-2.

I was a bit shocked since the japanese F-15 do intercept Russian and Chinese aircraft regularly so in Japan we are very interested in J-20.

But do not read beyond the numbers, the J-20 article is small, just main data and a small historical review, but they say only 10 aircraft, i did not read the whole issue since basically my daughter came, so we went to the place we needed to go.


Are they wrong? i do not know, was a very professional article? i do not know perhaps was a sloppy one, who knows, but the magazine claims only 10, perhaps they are wrong perhaps it was sloppy reporting or who knows, the point is simply calculate how many is tricky, at least i do not think you have ever seen 20 J-20s together, who knows they might be wrong, sloppy writter or i do not know i just told you what it says.
 
Last edited:

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
1,073
I don't see that it matters whether they have 10, 18 or 40 at this stage. The fact is they have invested into the J-20 and continuing to refine and improve it and sooner or later much larger numbers will be in service as production ramps up.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
441
....
But do not read beyond the numbers, the J-20 article is small, just main data and a small historical review, but they say only 10 aircraft, i did not read the whole issue ....

Are they wrong? i do not know, was a very professional article? i do not know perhaps was a sloppy one, who knows, but the magazine claims only 10, perhaps they are wrong perhaps it was sloppy reporting or who knows, the point is simply calculate how many is tricky, at least i do not think you have ever seen 20 J-20s together, who knows they might be wrong, sloppy writter or i do not know i just told you what it says.

Thanks for Your reply, but I must admit, isn't this a bit lame?? You made quite a bolt statement especially against my own numbers:

...counting bort numbers is good, recently in Japan in one of the most popular magazines they made an analysis on the 2020 February issue and they said China only has 10 J-20s probably operational aircraft
... but now you tell us it is only a brief report you only overflew and did not read properly, You do not know if it is based on reliable recent data but it "looks professional"!! :oops:

Come on, no reason is given, no explanation, why positively identified bort numbers should be wrong or what other reason they have to assume only about half the fleet as known by others only "since it looks professional"!
 
Last edited:

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
441
I don't see that it matters whether they have 10, 18 or 40 at this stage. The fact is they have invested into the J-20 and continuing to refine and improve it and sooner or later much larger numbers will be in service as production ramps up.

I have to contradict, since it gives us an idea of the production rate, overall CAC's manufatcuring capacity and the time it needs from first sight of a new sub-type to service introduction. As such the current number of three units - 176th, 172nd and 9th Brigades - fit quite nice to the expected number of aircarft from the first batch and also fits quite fine to LRIP capacity. Now it would be interesting to know, if the first WS-10C-powered one which were now posted (in fact even last year in summer) are still the same or if they are only ramping up production ... and as such it will be interesting to see, when the first unit will gain this new variant.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
Right now there are images of 17 planes with different serials in 3 different units. There are gaps in some of those serial ranges, and it's possible not all planes had pics taken of them. If all those unphotographed numbers are assumed as planes then there are at least 20 serials out there. Od course, there may be more at this point. This is also 3rd year of serial production so it would be expected that they have ramped up the production to a dozen per year by now.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
303
Reaction score
164
... but now you tell us it is only a brief report you only overflew and did not read properly, You do not know if it is based on reliable recent data but it "looks professional"!! :oops:

Come on, no reason is given, no explanation, why positively identified bort numbers should be wrong or what other reason they have to assume only about half the fleet as known by others only "since it looks professional"!
Please see i did not write the article, plus in every book store in Japan they have Jwings magazines, since i did not write article you can not blame me for it, second the article has production numbers for different aircraft, among them J-20 and Su-27 or MiG-29, in fact they have production numbers for several aircraft, now if you do not agree that is fine, that is what was written by Japanese writers in Jwing magazine which is one of the best magazines for Japanese aerospace, but it is not the best for Chinese aviation.

You can buy it and ask a friend to translate it, if you do not believe what it says, my daughter, wife and son speak perfect Japanese, i do read it to some degree, and if I want my son who reads perfect Japanese can translate it to me whatever i can not translate, but it says what i told you, just take it as it is, it says that and in Japan every one reading the magazine is reading that, now if it is accurate or not well it is another issue.
 
Last edited:

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
441
... but now you tell us it is only a brief report you only overflew and did not read properly, You do not know if it is based on reliable recent data but it "looks professional"!! :oops:

Come on, no reason is given, no explanation, why positively identified bort numbers should be wrong or what other reason they have to assume only about half the fleet as known by others only "since it looks professional"!
Please see i did not write the article, plus in every book store in Japan they have Jwings magazines, since i did not write article you can not blame me for it, second the article has production numbers for different aircraft, among them J-20 and Su-27 or MiG-29, in fact they have production numbers for several aircraft, now if you do not agree that is fine, that is what was written by Japanese writers in Jwing magazine which is one of the best magazines for Japanese aerospace, but it is not the best for Chinese aviation.

You can buy it and ask a friend to translate it, if you do not believe what it says, my daughter, wife and son speak perfect Japanese, i do read it to some degree, and if I want my son who reads perfect Japanese can translate to me whatever i can not translate, but it says what i told you, just take it as it is, it says that and in Japan every one reading the magazine is reading that, now if it is accurate or not well it is another issue.
Then - especially since you constantly mention it - be HONEST! Be honest with your own judgement and as such to us if a certain statement given by an unknown source is reliable or not and at lest explain the circumstances. It is dishonest to say "Japanese analysts say, there are only ten in service and THIS report clearly shows that counting bort numbers is unreliable" and then after some research you must admit, it is a popular magazine, not specifically related to defence matters, You not even read it completely nor can you say anything about its credibility, but "it looks" professional.
I take this as a direct personnel insult and offence to discredit my research based on your feelings against better knowing since it tells me that You trust your own "feeling" and a japanese fan-magazine more than you were even willing to discuss in earnest and HONEST what information is more reliable: Either mine proven by individual numbers or a "Japanese magazine that looks like".

I'm really pissed off, since this is always the same with your bolt statements, your analysis based on "academic papers" and so on ... oh YES, You have read them and only You understood them. :mad: Bun in the end it questions your whole credibility as vaporware.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,805
Reaction score
247
Deino, the best thing to do is not argue with him. We know who you are and are familiar with your work and it’s excellent. Stop arguing with someone who simply doesn’t know.
It works for me. ;)
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
338
Reaction score
57
Website
www.youtube.com
Just to mention F-22 and F-35 procurement contracts, as a comparison. Of course, in the end its about the money and product type and maturity, so these two may have NOTHING to do with actual J-20 production ramp-up, but still.

F-22 contracts
2 in 1999 (test vehicles, but not protypes)
10 in 2001 (start of actual serial production)
13 in 2002
21 in 2003
22 in 2004
24 in 2005

Note that these seem to be contract years. NOT deliveries in a given year.


F-35 contracts (LRIP only, not including prototypes)
14 in 2007
18 in 2008
32 in 2009
zero in 2010
32 in 2011

F-35 actual deliveries per year
unknown number up to 2010. Possibly zero as 2011 was the year USAF got its first plane.
9 in 2011
29 in 2012
35 in 2013
36 in 2014
45 in 2015

Or we can go the Russia route. Here's their deliveries per year:
Su-34
3 in 2009 and earlier
4 in 2010
6 in 2011
10 in 2012
14 in 2013
18 in 2014 and so on.

Su-30SM
2 in 2012
14 in 2013
21 in 2014
27 in 2015

Su-35
2 in 2012
8 in 2013
24 in 2014

Again, there's factors such as maturity, needs of the air force, budget, etc.

But IF there's enough money behind a clearly stated need and IF J-20 is deemed as a mature product, there's very little stopping it from having a ramp up like this one, for example:
a few in 2016
4+ in 2017
8+ in 2018
12+ in 2019
around 20 in 2020
20-30 in 2021
And so on.

The actual needs of PLAAF and the money are certainly the biggest factors here. There's little stopping PLAAF from getting even 30+ planes per year soon, IF both are there.
Also, if there are technical issues then the production ramp up might be very slow, more comparable to Su-34. But given the pics of J20 serials, that doesn't seem to be the case.
If the product is mature, quick ramp ups such as with Su30SM and Su-35 may also be realistic.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
711
we don;t know Totoro. They might have component issue such as part/material sourcing, reliability or cost that could slow down airframe output. There are no norm for Chinese Stealth fighter independently pursued. It's not like they have yet a mature industry there. It could take time. It could even never happen beyond a few billion $ prestige airframe.
 

pegasus

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
303
Reaction score
164
if you want to continue the conversation PM me i can keep the conversation private otherwise agree to disagree and let us conclude here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
351
Deino is an acknowledged expert on Chinese aviation whose knowledge and expert opinions on this topic many users (including myself) highly respect.
One single contributor who does not have nearly that level of knowledge, or respect in this forum or in the wider world, appears to more highly rate their own recollection of a rushed read of an article in a Japanese magazine they didn’t even bother to buy (?), which conveniently few if any of us could actually read, and then wonders why such opinions aren’t accredited with the same credibility or respect by other users of this forum (or the wider world).
Politely this is not a case which anyone apart from that one single contributor considers to be suitable for agreeing to disagree.
While given the limited sources everyone are operating with 100 percent certainty is not possible it is important to note the simply massive difference in credibility between the estimates of Deino versus those of the other contributor referenced above.
Not all opinions deserve equal weight.
 
Last edited:

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
441
Deino is an acknowledged expert on Chinese aviation whose knowledge and expert opinions on this topic many users (including myself) highly respect.
One single contributor who does not have nearly that level of knowledge, or respect in this forum or in the wider world, appears to more highly rate their own recollection of a rushed read of an article in a Japanese magazine they didn’t even bother to buy (?), which conveniently few if any of us could actually read, and then wonders why such opinions aren’t accredited with the same credibility or respect by other users of this forum (or the wider world).
Politely this is not a case which anyone apart from that one single contributor considers to be suitable for agreeing to disagree.
While given the limited sources everyone are operating with 100 percent certainty is not possible it is important to note the simply massive difference in credibility between the estimates of Deino versus those of the other contributor referenced above.
Not all opinions deserve equal weight.

AMEN to this ... and now back to the topic
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,198
Reaction score
861
if you want to continue the conversation PM me i can keep the conversation private otherwise agree to disagree and let us conclude here.
That sounds like an excellent idea to me !
When someone posts extremely long explanations, graphs or tables, perhaps only interesting to those, with deeper
insight and interest in a theme, widespread annoyance perhaps can be avoided by putting that stuff into, say, a pdf file and post
it as an attachment ?
And for those, not interested in posts and opinions of certain members, I would recommend the "ignore" function, to be found
by clicking on the user name and then on "Ignore".


1578215930437.png
 
Top