J-20... The New Generation Fighter II


Status
Not open for further replies.

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
what about boundary layer? The J-20 has a larger cross section and a longer fuselage body, i know for you it does not translate into area but for it does for air, more area exposed more radar signature, more drag.

Example F-35 and J-20 i know you will claim the J-20 is different but basicly both are the same type of aircraft seen frontally, however the J-20 is larger, this means more drag and a larger radar signature.
The F-22 has also a smaller are exposed to air and a shorter body fuselage so then times area in the equation will mean more area exposed.

Then the J-20 needs more thrust due to a larger body and heavier weight, unless it has engines like the F-119, F-135 or the new Russian T50 or I129 the J-20 won`t reach the same performance
The problem with this assumption is that you are assuming that China won't be able to come up with an engine in the same calibre by the time J-20 enters service. Going by this logic the J-20 shouldn't even exist in the first place.
 

MiG-29

Banned Idiot
The problem with this assumption is that you are assuming that China won't be able to come up with an engine in the same calibre by the time J-20 enters service. Going by this logic the J-20 shouldn't even exist in the first place.
No please do not misunderstanding, they might have the engine, but as far as 2011, only Russia and the US have engines confirmed of 16 tonnes

this is for 129
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and this confirms Russia has already a new engine better than the current Al-41F used on the PAKFA and this is for T50 engine
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Chinese model well i do not know if it is already available or not and on the J-20
 
Last edited:

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
No please do not misunderstanding, they might have the engine, but as far as 2011, only Russia and the US have engines of confirmed of 16 tonnes

this is for 129
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and this confirms Russia has already a new engine better than the current Al-41F used on the PAKFA and this is for T50 engine
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Chinese model well i do not know if it is already available or not and on the J-20
Of course the WS-15 isn't on the J-20 right now. But the point is that it should be anywhere between 2017-2019 so at most the PLAAF will have a first batch of J-20 that isn't able to supercruise, less manouverable etc. No big deal?
Not really sure what your point here is :confused:
 

MiG-29

Banned Idiot
Of course the WS-15 isn't on the J-20 right now. But the point is that it should be anywhere between 2017-2019 so at most the PLAAF will have a first batch of J-20 that isn't able to supercruise, less manouverable etc. No big deal?
Not really sure what your point here is :confused:
The new Al type 50 has already been tested on the T-50 PAK FA fighter, later i was presented here with the claim the J-20 had moveable LEX and that the J-20 generates less drag than the F-22.

My only claims was the J-20 needs very powerful engines to be in the class of the F-22, i said the J-20 must weigh around 21000-22000kg empty and around 40000-42000kg loaded at full take off weight.
In my opinion the J-20 represents more a larger F-35 type aircraft and in my opinion rather than the more agile F-22 and T-50
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
Of course the WS-15 isn't on the J-20 right now. But the point is that it should be anywhere between 2017-2019 so at most the PLAAF will have a first batch of J-20 that isn't able to supercruise, less manouverable etc. No big deal?
Not really sure what your point here is :confused:
I think his point is that when the J-20 gets the WS-15 its engines will be outclassed by better Russian and American engines.
 

MiG-29

Banned Idiot
I think his point is that when the J-20 gets the WS-15 its engines will be outclassed by better Russian and American engines.
maybe not, it is possible they will achieve parity or even surpass them for a while but the world is not static, if China develops something better it will be sooner or later surpassed by something from Russia or the US that is the dynamics of the arms race
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I think his point is that when the J-20 gets the WS-15 its engines will be outclassed by better Russian and American engines.
Yeah I'd agree with that, in terms of the kinematics of the three aircraft at least.

The new Al type 50 has already been tested on the T-50 PAK FA fighter, later i was presented here with the claim the J-20 had moveable LEX and that the J-20 generates less drag than the F-22.
There were so many claims everyone made here it's hard to tell who said what, but I'm assuming you were talking about johnq's mention of movable LEX? I think he said canards on the J-20 were effectively the movable LEX...
You guys can argue about the aerodynamics of the aircraft, which itself provides interesting reading, but using that as a basis for or against the agility of the aircraft is flawed in my opinion.

My only claims was the J-20 needs very powerful engines to be in the class of the F-22, i said the J-20 must weigh around 21000-22000kg empty and around 40000-42000kg loaded at full take off weight.
Considering F-22 is ~19,000 kg empty and ~38,000 MTOW (wiki, don't sue me) I'd say that's not impossible.

In my opinion the J-20 represents more a larger F-35 type aircraft and in my opinion rather than the more agile F-22 and T-50
Yeah this is where I disagre. I think you're going at this the wrong angle, from the physical and visual perspective, both of which can be as subjective as either side wants. On the other hand we've been hearing for years how J-XX/J-20 would aim to be "supermanouverable," to match the F-22 in that aspect... if given proper engines I see no reason why it cannot, without diving into the technical jargon which seems to deviate quite much.

Besides what is an "F-35 type" aircraft? A striker not optimized for air to air combat? I've only heard that from a few western aviation sites, writing the aircraft off so as to not have a real challenger to the almighty F-22... I mean really would it make sense for the PLAAF to have requirements for their future super high end aircraft not to match the agility of comparable aircraft? It's not like the PLAAF do not value that aspect of aircraft... a few people have argued that is one of the things they value most in fighters.
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
Besides what is an "F-35 type" aircraft? A striker not optimized for air to air combat? I've only heard that from a few western aviation sites, writing the aircraft off so as to not have a real challenger to the almighty F-22... I mean really would it make sense for the PLAAF to have requirements for their future super high end aircraft not to match the agility of comparable aircraft? It's not like the PLAAF do not value that aspect of aircraft... a few people have argued that is one of the things they value most in fighters.
Agility is actually a very important aspect of PLAAF's air doctrine. Even the J-8II interceptor was capable of decent (for a third generation aircraft) low and medium air manoeuvres. This probably stems from the favourable performance of the relatively low tech but agile fighters like the J-5 and J-6 against the F-4s and F-104s in the 60s.
 

MiG-29

Banned Idiot
Yeah I'd agree with that, in terms of the kinematics of the three aircraft at least.



There were so many claims everyone made here it's hard to tell who said what, but I'm assuming you were talking about johnq's mention of movable LEX? I think he said canards on the J-20 were effectively the movable LEX...
You guys can argue about the aerodynamics of the aircraft, which itself provides interesting reading, but using that as a basis for or against the agility of the aircraft is flawed in my opinion.



Considering F-22 is ~19,000 kg empty and ~38,000 MTOW (wiki, don't sue me) I'd say that's not impossible.



Yeah this is where I disagre. I think you're going at this the wrong angle, from the physical and visual perspective, both of which can be as subjective as either side wants. On the other hand we've been hearing for years how J-XX/J-20 would aim to be "supermanouverable," to match the F-22 in that aspect... if given proper engines I see no reason why it cannot, without diving into the technical jargon which seems to deviate quite much.

Besides what is an "F-35 type" aircraft? A striker not optimized for air to air combat? I've only heard that from a few western aviation sites, writing the aircraft off so as to not have a real challenger to the almighty F-22... I mean really would it make sense for the PLAAF to have requirements for their future super high end aircraft not to match the agility of comparable aircraft? It's not like the PLAAF do not value that aspect of aircraft... a few people have argued that is one of the things they value most in fighters.
Well in my personal opinion for China to create a F-22 equivalent it is everything about the engine, if they do not have a F-119 equivalent they won`t have a F-22 equivalent, Russia is struggling to get a F119 equivalent and according to the latest reports the new Type 50 is 25% more powerful than the 15000kg Al-41F that currently powers the PAK FA this means they have a 16000-17000kg engine and they have already flown it in 2011 on one of the prototypes of the PAKFA.
This means the lighter T-50 will surpass the F-22 and J-20 in performance will be able to fit a 2D flat nozzle easily, for China the same is appliable, now according to the Russians by 2015 the PAK FA will fly with the newer Iz-129 on operational jets, this means that they need 4-5 years to debug the engine, China needs at least 5 years to to test the WS-15, but it seems they have not flown such engine, i doubt honestly China will fly the new WS-15 by 2017 in operational units, even Russia will probably fly few IOC aircraft with such engine and only by 2020 will master the technology, the US by that time will fly a new sixth generation fighter, and will have several hundred more F-35s than Russia T-50s or China J-20s
 
Last edited:

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well in my personal opinion for China to create a F-22 equivalent it is everything about the engine, if they do not have a F-119 equivalent they won`t have a F-22 equivalent,
If the single block here is the engine question the most I can say is the status quo that WS-15 is said to be ready by 2015, probably a few years after that as schedules inevitably slip.

Russia is struggling to get a F119 equivalent and according to the latest reports the new Type 50 is 25% more powerful than the 15000kg Al-41F that currently powers the PAK FA this means they have a 16000-17000kg engine and they have already flown it in 2011 on one of the prototypes of the PAKFA.
This means the lighter T-50 will surpass the F-22 and J-20 in performance will be able to fit a 2D flat nozzle easily, for China the same is appliable, now according to the Russians by 2015 the PAK FA will fly with the newer Iz-129 on operational jets, this means that they need 4-5 years to debug the engine, China needs at least 5 years to to test the WS-15, but it seems they have not flown such engine, i doubt honestly China will fly the new WS-17 by 2017 in operational units, even Russia will probably fly few IOC aircraft with such engine and only by 2020 will master the technology, the US by that time will fly a new sixth generation fighter, and will have several hundred more F-35s than Russia T-50s or China J-20s
I'm not particularly familiar with russian engine developments unfortunately so I can't comment on that, but I will say that the US will probably not fly a 6th generation fighter until beyond 2020. I don't think the real seeds for a 6th gen plane will emerge until beyond 2020 either.

And yeah what I meant by the whole 2017 thing is the full J-20 package with IOC as opposed to J-20 minus WS-15 IOC.

Agility is actually a very important aspect of PLAAF's air doctrine. Even the J-8II interceptor was capable of decent (for a third generation aircraft) low and medium air manoeuvres. This probably stems from the favourable performance of the relatively low tech but agile fighters like the J-5 and J-6 against the F-4s and F-104s in the 60s.
Yes, all the more reason I have to doubt the idea they would not emphasise agility on the J-20...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top