J-20... The New Generation Fighter

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by Delbert, Dec 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kwiekie
    Offline

    kwiekie New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    4
    [video=youtube;KKtDHBuLqjw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKtDHBuLqjw&feature=related[/video]
     
  2. Mith252
    Offline

    Mith252 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, they are sure pretty lax with security there. Nice view, I have to say. The way they were towing the J-20 seems to indicate as though they are purposely showing off the plane to the onlookers. That seems to be the case in my opinion. :)
     
  3. Asymptote
    Offline

    Asymptote Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm, Has anyone got a better pic of J-20's glass canopy?? It looks to me like the one piece canopy the same as the F-22 type, which is amazing considering the level of glass tech that goes into making it one piece (and able to resist up to 3G of acceleration / bird strike)

    Overall, I felt the J-20 seems to be just a work-in-progress prototype as advertised, it looks very much unpolished and not thought out if you compare it to the PAK-FA, if you look at the level of details in PAK-FA you will see there are so many little details in that prototype, its almost a production ready plane. The airframe design of J-20 reminds me of the Mikoyan Project 1.44 back in the 90s....


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    There are just so many details from the prototype that needs to be resolved, and that's just the airframe part, not including the critical rear engine stealth shaping, fire control system, radar and avionics (as many defense experts including current US DOD Secretary of Defense Robert Gate pointed out on CNN) the software package, and avionics are the weakest part of current China tech, and it can seriously weaken the whole design if not done right.

    It seems China is accelerating its aircraft development tremendously, and I have previously projected that China won't have 5th generation fighter until well after 2030, but it looks like having at least a working prototype, China can expect to have a decent 5th generation fighter by 2020. I think currently most of the designers are still chewing through the lessons learned in J-10 still, there will still be quite a few variants of J-10 and J-11 (with radical airframe shapings) and design configurations before a TRUE chinese design 5th generation fighter come to fruition. (The Russians went through several radical designs eg. Mig 1.42/1.44, Sukhoi Su-47 before settling on PAK-FA)

    I personally think the current J-20 is just a proof of concept by using technologies and design ideas learned in J-10/J-11, and enhanced with stealth airframe shapings concepts from F-22/J-35/Mig 1.44.

    There are still a lot of critical issues to resolve, and the design team may even throw the whole airframe idea away like the Russian did with Mig 1.44, and start a few new airframe design and finally settled on a new design. Oh that note, it reminds me, for whatever the reason, why was Mig 1.44's airframe design thrown away? was the canard delta wing concept a bad stealth idea? This is a critical question I think that needs to be ask, Because it seems none of the 5th generation fighter (with exception to the Korean KAI KF-X concept) use the canard configuration.
     
    #2683 Asymptote, Jan 10, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2011
  4. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,288
    Likes Received:
    3,482
    The Russians went through a series of designs because their defence firms needed intermediate proof of concepts to attract funding (both domestic and abroad) while their military budgets were bleeding to death. China doesn't have that problem. While this thing may look a bit rough around the edges, the amount of attention it has been getting from leadership and the lack of need to market to their designs tells us this is it. Lots of details will change but the basic airframe is what it is.

    And except for the delta canard configuration it's nothing like the mig 1.44. The thing has side intakes.
     
  5. rhino123
    Offline

    rhino123 Pencil Pusher
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    179
    Er... MiG1.44 was cancelled because of its extremely high cost of development and not anything to do with its performance.

    Plus... I find J-20 a sexy plane, and much well created as compared to the PAK FA... at least the two engines are not sticking out and 'exposed' as much.
     
  6. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,529
    Likes Received:
    16,330
    ^ 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...

    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.

    You're making it sound like we all predicted J-20 will instantaneously be ready to enter service when we first get pictures of it... Most of us still believe it can and will enter service in the 2017-2019 (or maybe 2015, for non WS-15 variants) timeline.

    ... 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...

    And Mig 1.44 is hardly advanced stealth shaping... it has no more stealth shaping than your run of the mill 4th gen aircraft.

    I'm not sure what issues can force you to throw away an airframe design... Elaborate?

    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.

    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.
     
  7. Asymptote
    Offline

    Asymptote Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, can we delete all those trolling post by various people, there is no point in keeping those pollution in this thread, and ban those idiots outright since its pointless to keep them around. For example BAJRANGBAL's post at #2536, ITS COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC. This is a technical discussion of J-20.
     
  8. 70092
    Offline

    70092 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    13
  9. nameless
    Offline

    nameless Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually PAK-FA looks like a its based on the flanker design and some parts do not look stealthy at all.
    [​IMG]
     
    #2689 nameless, Jan 10, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2011
  10. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,698
    Likes Received:
    26,736
    I guess some people just post an opinion without doing any research or maybe the truth is too painfull to face instead they are going into denial and belittling other people achievement
    REad this buddy
    International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Report from the 2010 Chinese Defense Electronics Exhibition (CIDEX): Growing Industry – Advancing Technology

    2) Chinese Defence Products Today: State-of-the Art

    Chinese defence products were once thought of as being moderately capable copies of previous-generation hardware that contained attributes of Russian, European and Israeli designs. Some of those bloodlines can still be seen in their designs, but the products now being seen at an expo like CIDEX show that Chinese firms have capabilities that approach first world industrial, state-of-the-art levels of sophistication.

    In the 1990s, when the Russian defence was in danger of drying up and closing its doors due to an almost complete collapse in any funding from their own government, it was China that saved the day. China bought billions in military hardware from Russia, but it also sent its engineers, designers and technicians to study inside of Russian industry to learn how the weapons it was purchasing had been developed in the first place.

    This transfer of technological know-how, plus some enormous investments by the Chinese military into its state-owned industries (what more than one Russian has referred to as “uncontrolled and rampant modernisation”) has produced a defence electronics industry that far outstrips the size and capacity of that which existed in Russia when Chinese industry first began their cooperation with Moscow in the early 1990s.

    Today the former students (the Chinese) have become the masters. Chinese industry now has the ability to produce components that the Russian electronics industry (after almost two decades of no investment by their government) is no longer capable of either designing or manufacturing. The initial failure rates on the production of transmit/receive (T/R) modules for the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars being designed for the Mikoyan MiG-35 and the Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA 5th-generation fighter, for example, were so high that it would have bankrupted any western firm involved in a similar programme.
     
    #2690 Hendrik_2000, Jan 10, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2011
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page