J-20... The New Generation Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

dingyibvs

Senior Member
Re: New Generation Fighter

A few thoughts:

The aileron actuator fairing/bulb things concern me in that they do not look like they are being blended into the undersides of the wings. This could affect RCS. They are also huge compared to the ones on the F-22. Does this indicate issues with miniaturizing?

People on this site were also talking about creeping radar waves increasing RCS on aircraft that do not have horizontal stabilizers (or in this case canards) that are not on the same plane, as viewed by an emitting enemy radar. This plane's canards are obviously NOT on the same plane. Does this mean the aircraft designers aren't as smart as the people here? Or that the theory of creeping radar waves increasing RCS is full of crap? Hmmm.

Finally, the image of the JXX on the left screen in the cockpit photo seems to indicate the ability to install 2 external hardpoints on each wing and 6 distinct undercarriage positions for missiles (perhaps 4 MRAAM's and 2 SRAAM's).

It's a matter of physics. Creeping wave diffraction is a major source of radar return is a fact. With that said, how does that have anything to do with whether the canards are on the same plane as the wings? Do you even understand how creeping wave diffraction works? Unless canards are seamlessly connected to the wings, which would make them LERX's, it does nothing to reduce that effect. Also, note how the root of the canards are in fact exactly on the same plane as the wings(the root is connected with the leading edge of the wings, so they have to be), unlike ANY OTHER canard plane we've seen. This is obviously an attempt to reduce the creeping wave effect as much as possible. That is, the canards themselves will be vulnerable to this effect, but at least their roots won't be.
 

Spoiler56

New Member
Re: New Generation Fighter

I have similar questions. The discussion here, so far, has led me to accept that -sorry for the cliche- it is what it is. As a million pics, and certainly the PLAAF, will never reveal to us the whole set of data that our curiousities demand, maybe we should just look at the pics and learn what we can.

Anyone else here find it somewhat perverse that the only way we could ever know how good any of these things perform is for someone to die? Or, is it that they'll perform best if war can be discouraged and avoided?

My advice would be to adhere or follow the words of a much wiser person - Sun Tzu - The Art of War -
IMHO and that is just my 2cents too
 

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: New Generation Fighter

I have similar questions. The discussion here, so far, has led me to accept that -sorry for the cliche- it is what it is. As a million pics, and certainly the PLAAF, will never reveal to us the whole set of data that our curiousities demand, maybe we should just look at the pics and learn what we can.

Anyone else here find it somewhat perverse that the only way we could ever know how good any of these things perform is for someone to die? Or, is it that they'll perform best if war can be discouraged and avoided?

The PLA try to keep all their specs in the down low -- it's part of their policy to misinform and make their enemies underestimate them (and also to frustrate viewers like us).

Aside from espionage, the only other way is for one of us to join the PLA and become a high ranking officer able to skive off all the data.

And then get shot. :D

We can only try and speculate from the pictures and what little information we can glean from reputable BBS posters.
 

MwRYum

Major
Re: New Generation Fighter

The PLA try to keep all their specs in the down low -- it's part of their policy to misinform and make their enemies underestimate them (and also to frustrate viewers like us).

Aside from espionage, the only other way is for one of us to join the PLA and become a high ranking officer able to skive off all the data.

And then get shot. :D

We can only try and speculate from the pictures and what little information we can glean from reputable BBS posters.

No, joining the air force would take too long to work up the chain, join the aircraft manufacturer is easier (for the same requirement of degrees and such), work your way up the R&D division would even better: first-hand accounts on work-in-progress, chance to visit test airfield, attendance at first-flight ceremony (license to take pics, anyone?)...and by many accounts, design teams are getting younger overall - keep the brain juice fresh I think, not bog down by old ways.

Guys, I know I'm a skeptic and won't shy about it, but in comparison, those at Taiwan are really...lagging, I say...

1293616987035.jpg


Sheesh, they're really yesterday.

I wonder how those hardliners explain off the horde of new pics since then...

Me? I'm waiting for the J-20 to fly. If their chief of AF still on-site, no way he's going to miss that.
 
Last edited:

MwRYum

Major
Re: New Generation Fighter

Another one...not the whole thing but IMO this is the clearest yet...hopefully that's real deal.
1293617401345.jpg
 
Last edited:

latenlazy

Brigadier
Re: New Generation Fighter

It's a matter of physics. Creeping wave diffraction is a major source of radar return is a fact. With that said, how does that have anything to do with whether the canards are on the same plane as the wings? Do you even understand how creeping wave diffraction works? Unless canards are seamlessly connected to the wings, which would make them LERX's, it does nothing to reduce that effect. Also, note how the root of the canards are in fact exactly on the same plane as the wings(the root is connected with the leading edge of the wings, so they have to be), unlike ANY OTHER canard plane we've seen. This is obviously an attempt to reduce the creeping wave effect as much as possible. That is, the canards themselves will be vulnerable to this effect, but at least their roots won't be.
I wonder if the upward cant of the canard is a way to control the release of a creeping wave from the trailing edge.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Re: New Generation Fighter

"Black Silk Stocking", for the pronunciation of "black 4th generation" in Mandarin. This is the nickname in most Chinese military forums.
Now, THAT, I Like!!!
黑丝袋. That's witty.


Australia Air Power on J-20 , posting in full
Dr Carlo Kopp

Over the last few days imagery of what is claimed to be China's new stealth fighter has appeared on a range of Chinese Internet sites. There have been no official disclosures as yet, so many of the claims appearing in the media may only be speculation presented as fact.

The aircraft may be a technology demonstrator or a prototype for a mass production fighter aircraft. The latter is however much more likely, given that the PLA Chief of Air Staff claimed an IOC later in the decade.

What the imagery shows is a large fighter, approaching the size of an F-111, with a canard delta configuration and pair of outward canted all moving vertical tails. This configuration will provide good sustained supersonic cruise performance with a suitable engine type, and good manoeuvre performance in transonic and supersonic regimes.

Of most interest is the stealth shaping, which is considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Chinese design appears to be largely built around the stealth shaping design rules employed in the F-22A Raptor. The chined nose section and canopy are close in appearance to the F-22. The trapezoidal inlets are closest to the F-22, but employ an F-35 style boundary layer control design. The wing fuselage join angle, critical for side aspect stealth, is very similar to the F-22 and superior to the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The flat lower fuselage is optimal for all aspect wideband stealth. Planform alignment is impossible to assess until in flight imagery becomes available.

The aft fuselage, tailboom, strakes and nozzles are not compatible with high stealth performance, but may only be stop gap measures to expedite flight testing of a prototype. The airframe configuration and aft fuselage would be compatible with an F-22 style 2D TVC nozzle design, or a non-TVC rectangular nozzle designed for controlled infrared emission and radio-frequency stealth.

The PLA have not disclosed the engine type. There are claims that the Russians supplied supercruise capable 117S series engines - these would not be sufficient to extract the full performance potential of this advanced airframe.

The airframe configuration is compatible with ventral and side opening internal weapon bays, and large enough to match or exceed the internal weapons payload of the F-22A Raptor. Internal fuel fraction may also be high, given the fuselage configuration and large internal volume of the big delta wing.

Other unknowns are the intended sensor suite. China has yet to demonstrate an AESA radar, or an advanced indigenous emitter locating system. However, these could become available by the time this airframe enters production.

The size of the airframe, and its evident focus on supersonic persistence, suggests at a minimum an intention to provide a long range interceptor for air control in the Second Island Chain geography. This capability by default would provide the ability to penetrate an opposing IADS to destroy assets like AWACS, other ISR systems, and tankers. Suffice to say, with suitable internal weapons, the design could be employed as a penetrating strike aircraft, in the combat radius class of the F-111 or Su-34 Fullback.

The notion that an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be capable of competing against this Chengdu design in air combat, let along penetrate airspace defended by this fighter, is simply absurd.

APA will produce a detailed analysis at a future date, once more technical material becomes available.

Some excellent analysis of this system by Bill Sweetman, Editor of DTI, can be located at:

J-20 - Denial Is Not An Option
China's Stealth Striker
Got this off the Secretproject forum. Seems like Kopp actually has some positive things to say for once. I find it funny that "Sweetman's" analysis is considered "excellent".
 
Last edited:

Centrist

Junior Member
Re: New Generation Fighter

It's a lot harder to follow this forum in China....Anyway, great pics are coming out. But I am not convinced that this thing is powered by WS-10A. I mean...I don't see what the other option could be, it just doesn't look like WS-10a to me.

Additionally, I feel as though China will need to buy 117S engines soon (if they havent already). The WS10a doesn't have the thrust or the thrust vectoring (and wont have it for many years) and therefore the J-20 airframe cannot be adequately tested to see if it can handle the stressed of TVC.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: New Generation Fighter

This is an excellent thread.. however some of you new members need to take time and read the forum rules.

FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!

Also a few pages ago there was the old we can sink a carrier discussion.. Gents good news! We have threads for that discussion!!

The End of the Carrier Age?

How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Anti-Carrier Trump Card

While these threads have been dormant for sometime feel free to get the discussion going again.

We also have two very prominent aircraft carrier threads.

Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos


Aircraft Carriers II

Enjoy!


bd popeye super moderator
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top