J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[iewgnem]

Except for the difference of course that the speeds, distances and altitudes of the respective platform and targets that each is oriented towards.

The problem I have with your suggestion is it implies that the same technologies on a consumer quadcopter drone (as advanced as they are) could offer a major capability uplift if they were transplanted to a military fighter jet.

Cameras work in pixel and angular domain, spatial distances don't really matter. Infact target discrimination in IR against mostly cold background is much easier than optical discrimination at low altitudes against a cluttered background.

Obviously military equipment has their unique set of requirements, but physics work the same no matter if you're civilian or military, the distinction between military and civilian technology is often not nearly as big as most people think.

Case in point fighter EODAs sensor fusion obviously have added requirement to defeat dazzlers and targets that actively try to prevent tracking, and might have filters to discriminate missiles from aircraft, but at end of the day you're still tracking aerial targets and then taking action based on tracking data, the technology isn't fundamentally different.

 

[latenlazy]

Cameras work in pixel and angular domain, spatial distances don't really matter. Infact target discrimination in IR against mostly cold background is much easier than optical discrimination at low altitudes against a cluttered background.

Obviously military equipment has their unique set of requirements, but physics work the same no matter if you're civilian or military, the distinction between military and civilian technology is often not nearly as big as most people think.

Case in point fighter EODAs sensor fusion obviously have added requirement to defeat dazzlers and targets that actively try to prevent tracking, and might have filters to discriminate missiles from aircraft, but at end of the day you're still tracking aerial targets and then taking action based on tracking data, the technology isn't fundamentally different.

From an electrical engineering standpoint the main performance stressor should be maintaining high scanning speed for your imaging sensor while preserving high data bandwidth in conjunction with various electromagnetic hardening requirements. In terms of comparability I think it depends on which part of the stack we’re discussing. I think on the processing side the performance determinants should be pretty comparable between consumer and military. Not as sure that holds lower on the stack.

 

[siegecrossbow]

There is a section on the A, just behind the hump, with 5/6 components/sections, looks like covers for something. Any ideas for what?

The cope in me wants to say hard refueling probe receptor but we all know it’s not the case.

 

[Blitzo]

Cameras work in pixel and angular domain, spatial distances don't really matter. Infact target discrimination in IR against mostly cold background is much easier than optical discrimination at low altitudes against a cluttered background.

Obviously military equipment has their unique set of requirements, but physics work the same no matter if you're civilian or military, the distinction between military and civilian technology is often not nearly as big as most people think.

Case in point fighter EODAs sensor fusion obviously have added requirement to defeat dazzlers and targets that actively try to prevent tracking, and might have filters to discriminate missiles from aircraft, but at end of the day you're still tracking aerial targets and then taking action based on tracking data, the technology isn't fundamentally different.

Distances absolutely do matter; the ability to discriminate a target from 20m away is different from the ability to discriminate a target 20km away. which is very different from the ability to discriminate a target from 200km away. The number of targets meant to be processed and managed at once and linked in and correlated with other sensors (radar, ESM) to ensure nil duplicated tracks, are also different.

If one wants to suggest that there are civilian domain technologies which may have some degree of applicability or benefit in military domains, that is fine, but comparing the number of sensors on a DJI drone with a F-35 or a SU7 car with a J-20 directly like that is the equivalent of comparing a Roomba's sensors with a modern IFV -- sure there's some cross pollination and "overlap" in technology but trying to infer or boast about how capable a military product may be due to a consumer civilian product, is nonsensical.


Putting it another way, if one wants to argue that the capability of J-20's EO suite is probably quite competitive, you are almost certainly going to be weakening your argument by saying "look at how good DJI's drones or Xiaomi's cars are".

 

[sanctionsevader]

Putting it another way, if one wants to argue that the capability of J-20's EO suite is probably quite competitive, you are almost certainly going to be weakening your argument by saying "look at how good DJI's drones or Xiaomi's cars are".

Seems entirely plausible that Chinese hardware/software companies saw a lot of benefit from the huge PRC defense patent disclosures (done specifically to rapidly improve civilian tech and civil-military fusion) that took place pretty much right before the world started seeing massive shift in how advanced Chinese civilian hardware/software was (2017-now).

 

[Neurosmith]

View attachment 167617

New detail spotted.

After reviewing photos of the J-20A and J-20S, I suspect that the circled objects (in your post and the red circles in the below photo) are refueling ports for flying-boom-type refueling operations. If not fully operational, they could also be spaces dedicated to future modification that would enable such refueling operations.

Another clue supporting this theory is that the cover for the refuelling probe on the baseline J-20 (circled in cyan), which is of a different hue compared to the surrounding airframe, seems to be absent on the J-20A or J-20S. Granted, it is possible that the corresponding probe covers on the A and S are merely painted in the same color as the rest of the fuselage, but it does raise some questions.

A third clue is the serrated edge pattern of the panel/object on the J-20A/S. This implies that it is a door or hatch that is meant to be opened and closed in flight, with the serrated edge present to minimize radar return.



While one might point to the lack of boom-type refueling aircraft within the PLAAF as a rebuttal to this theory, keep in mind that the PLA is known for its long-term thinking and future-proofing designs to fit near- and far-future operational requirements. Boom-type refueling offers faster fuel transfer versus traditional probe-and-drogue methods, and this could translate to a critical advantage during a high-intensity conflict. We know that the PLAAF has at least toyed with boom-type refueling concepts, and we even have some scant evidence that the Y-20B is designed around this concept.

For comparison, the F-22's refueling port:

 

[karaway]

After reviewing photos of the J-20A and J-20S, I suspect that the circled objects (in your post and the red circles in the below photo) are refueling ports for flying-boom-type refueling operations. If not fully operational, they could also be spaces dedicated to future modification that would enable such refueling operations.

Another clue supporting this theory is that the cover for the refuelling probe on the baseline J-20 (circled in cyan), which is of a different hue compared to the surrounding airframe, seems to be absent on the J-20A or J-20S. Granted, it is possible that the corresponding probe covers on the A and S are merely painted in the same color as the rest of the fuselage, but it does raise some questions.

A third clue is the serrated edge pattern of the panel/object on the J-20A/S. This implies that it is a door or hatch that is meant to be opened and closed in flight, with the serrated edge present to minimize radar return.

View attachment 167740

While one might point to the lack of boom-type refueling aircraft within the PLAAF as a rebuttal to this theory, keep in mind that the PLA is known for its long-term thinking and future-proofing designs to fit near- and far-future operational requirements. Boom-type refueling offers faster fuel transfer versus traditional probe-and-drogue methods, and this could translate to a critical advantage during a high-intensity conflict. We know that the PLAAF has at least toyed with boom-type refueling concepts, and we even have some scant evidence that the Y-20B is designed around this concept. In a separate post, it is also noted that the J-35 might have what seems to be a boom-type refueling port.

For comparison, the F-22's refueling port:
View attachment 167742

Equipping two sets of refueling systems at the same time doesn't sound like a good idea.

The aircraft will incur an additional weight penalty.

In fact, that device is more like a concealed UHF satellite communication antenna, which enables the J20A and unmanned aircraft, as well as other stealth aircraft, to conduct covert communication.

 

[Neurosmith]

Equipping two sets of refueling systems at the same time doesn't sound like a good idea.

The aircraft will incur an additional weight penalty.

In fact, that device is more like a concealed UHF satellite communication antenna, which enables the J20A and unmanned aircraft, as well as other stealth aircraft, to conduct covert communication.

I didn't say that the A and S are adopting both systems, as the plumbing would be far too complex.

 

[karaway]

I didn't say that the A and S are adopting both systems, as the plumbing would be far too complex.

However, the PLAAF currently does not have any hard-tube aerial refueling aircraft.

If the J20A/S were to switch to using the hard-tube refueling system, for a period of time in the future, these new aircraft would be unable to perform tasks that require aerial refueling.

It sounds rather worrying, especially considering that the J20A might experience a reduction in flight range after being equipped with the WS15 engine.

 

[CaribouTruth]

Another clue supporting this theory is that the cover for the refuelling probe on the baseline J-20 (circled in cyan), which is of a different hue compared to the surrounding airframe, seems to be absent on the J-20A or J-20S. Granted, it is possible that the corresponding probe covers on the A and S are merely painted in the same color as the rest of the fuselage, but it does raise some questions.

Here's a better picture, the refueling probe thing is still there.

On the J-20 that ventral spot had various antennas, so I think saying that it might be part of a better or upgraded sensor suite would be a lesser leap of logic.