Asymptote
Banned Idiot
Post all you info and discussion on the J-20 here...And knock off the off-topic junk. Stay on topic.!! Enjoy the discussion!!
Here's a link back to the old thread I'll move some of the post from the last few days to this thread .
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/air-force/j-20-new-generation-fighter-4260.html
bd popeye super moderator
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's just put it this way, the J-20 looks like a mock-up. It has none of the finishes of a proper flyable prototype plane. If you look at J-10, J-11B, J-10B, F-35 and PAK-FA's prototype airframes, they are usually in yellow colour (or light green in F-35's case) with lots of rivets, trims, and details on the airframes. The J-20 on the other hand looks to me like a one piece fiberglass mock up that's not really flyable.
Yep, the ventral fins, the engines, seems weak and unresolved, and we have NO IDEA what's the current software package/sensor package on-board the J-20 (or latest J-11B/J-10) or how capable they are compare to the western counterparts.
Talk about ventral fins, that's another detail that reminds me of Mig 1.42/1.44. Infact, the whole plane practically resembles Mig 1.42/1.44 if not for the fact it has a pair of side engine air intacts. Another detail I notice is the canted "all moving tailplane" which is also another signature of Mig 1.42/1.44.
Same reason as I stated above, it looks like a fiberglass mock up, maybe its flyable, it just felt more or less like the Sukoi Su-47 technical demonstrator to me, with a lot less resolved details.
More or less, the Russian were exploring the stealth concept so they sort of "squashed" the plane a little and canted the vertical stabilizers a bit to give it a better radar shaping, but I think back then the Russians were trying to make their ambitious "plasma stealth" system to work, so airframe radar cross section shaping wasn't high on the Priority.
That's the question I am also asking - what cuase the Russians to throw away the Mig 1.42/1.44 in the first place? From the photos, all I can gather is that it could be the canard configuration and their plasma stealth tech. The canard for whatever the reason is probably not very stealthy airframe design, and their plasma steath tech probably failed so they eventually opted to throw the whole airframe design away and opted to copy the more conventional F-22/F-23 design.
On a side note, I thought canards are great for frontal stealth.
Perhaps. I don't know, I am still curious if canard was the problem.
I am not hoping anything, I am just curious at the development, seeing all other 4th and 5th generation fighter programs taken place in the past, its interesting to see and compare the concept and results, and the timeline of development.
Here's a link back to the old thread I'll move some of the post from the last few days to this thread .
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/air-force/j-20-new-generation-fighter-4260.html
bd popeye super moderator
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
^ Are you serious? The details which the PAK FA had were far... less than what we're seeing on the J-20 prototypes. Have you seen the serrations all over the plane...?
J-20 actually reminds me of the J-9 wind tunnel image from the 60s or 70s, but each to their own...
Let's just put it this way, the J-20 looks like a mock-up. It has none of the finishes of a proper flyable prototype plane. If you look at J-10, J-11B, J-10B, F-35 and PAK-FA's prototype airframes, they are usually in yellow colour (or light green in F-35's case) with lots of rivets, trims, and details on the airframes. The J-20 on the other hand looks to me like a one piece fiberglass mock up that's not really flyable.
Err no the avionics are probably the strongest part of current Chinese tech, and engines are the weakest. I have no idea where you're getting your information from... And what "airframe details" need to be resolved"? I understand the ventral fins and maybe the engine nozzles could be made better, but apart from that the plane's design could be a done deal.
Yep, the ventral fins, the engines, seems weak and unresolved, and we have NO IDEA what's the current software package/sensor package on-board the J-20 (or latest J-11B/J-10) or how capable they are compare to the western counterparts.
Talk about ventral fins, that's another detail that reminds me of Mig 1.42/1.44. Infact, the whole plane practically resembles Mig 1.42/1.44 if not for the fact it has a pair of side engine air intacts. Another detail I notice is the canted "all moving tailplane" which is also another signature of Mig 1.42/1.44.
... Wait so you're saying J-20 is just a tech demonstrator or not a TRUE5th gen fighter? If the latter, please explain (from what you can see) why it isn't? (Of course we're only looking at a prototype now -- we have to assume it will get the eventual AESA radar, 5th gen WS-15, probable EO systems like DAS, etc etc)
If chatter is true, then there are two flyable J-20 prototypes out -- no tech demonstrator would need two flyable platforms...
Same reason as I stated above, it looks like a fiberglass mock up, maybe its flyable, it just felt more or less like the Sukoi Su-47 technical demonstrator to me, with a lot less resolved details.
And Mig 1.44 is hardly advanced stealth shaping... it has no more stealth shaping than your run of the mill 4th gen aircraft.
More or less, the Russian were exploring the stealth concept so they sort of "squashed" the plane a little and canted the vertical stabilizers a bit to give it a better radar shaping, but I think back then the Russians were trying to make their ambitious "plasma stealth" system to work, so airframe radar cross section shaping wasn't high on the Priority.
I'm not sure what issues can force you to throw away an airframe design... Elaborate?
That's the question I am also asking - what cuase the Russians to throw away the Mig 1.42/1.44 in the first place? From the photos, all I can gather is that it could be the canard configuration and their plasma stealth tech. The canard for whatever the reason is probably not very stealthy airframe design, and their plasma steath tech probably failed so they eventually opted to throw the whole airframe design away and opted to copy the more conventional F-22/F-23 design.
On a side note, I thought canards are great for frontal stealth.
The Mig 1.44 was thrown away because it couldn't compete with the USA's ATF. It wasn't because of the delta canard configuration, but rather the MFI's stealth shaping in general. I mean just look at the 1.44 compared with F-22, F-35, PAK FA, J-20. It doesn't have chining, edge alignment, serrations... and that's just the basic everyday stuff.
Perhaps. I don't know, I am still curious if canard was the problem.
I see no reason why CAC would throw this design away... from everything we've heard this plane is meant for production and service later this decade. I'm not sure if your statements are your personal hopes or what you believe will happen.
I am not hoping anything, I am just curious at the development, seeing all other 4th and 5th generation fighter programs taken place in the past, its interesting to see and compare the concept and results, and the timeline of development.
Last edited by a moderator: