J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

Martian said:

I read your article. I have one question. You wrote that the J-20 is the high-end backbone; J-10 is the middle-end; and J-7 is the low-end. As I see it, the J-10 (which is not cheap) is just as vulnerable as a low-end non-stealthy aircraft.

What do you think about the idea that non-stealthy J-10s will be produced in limited numbers and the rest should be upgraded stealthy J-10 versions (e.g. similar to F-15 Silent Eagle)?

Click to expand...

I think the entire idea of silent eagle is a marketing ploy. I'm sure it has lower RCS, but making a design really LO has to be done at the original design. You can't get really stealth from something that wasn't originally designed with stealth in mind.

J-10B is already designed to have lower signature than J-10A and I'm sure future J-10 variants will also have that in mind. So in that sense, J-20 will be the top end that is a LO design and J-10's later variants can have among the lowest signatures amongst existing 4th generation jet. Remember, improvements in its electronics, weaponry and powerplant will alread make it a much more potent plane.

Bltizo said:

My 2 cents:
J-20 will be the only stealth fighter for the forseeable future until a medium stealthy fighter comes along to replace J-10 and J-11s later, but that'll be years away.
the High J-20, Medium J-11 and J-10, and Low J-7/J-8/Early flankers sounds like a fair projection and it'll be near to impossible to make a J-10 with internal weapon bays.

Only the US will have a majority-5th generation fleet in near future, and if the majority of PLAAF fighters aren't stealthy it'll be more than enough to deal with regional neighbours.

Click to expand...

right, let them finish developing this first and learn all of the lessons. In 5 years once they are more advanced in all aspects of 5th generation technology, then they can develop a cheaper 5th generation option.

Remember, work for 6th generation UCAV designs are just as important.

Centrist said:

I read it, but I have a question for you. How can you be so sure that the WS-10 engine powering the J-20 is uprated? The WS-10 is said to give out about 132 KN of thrust, which is more than enough to get a fully armed and fully fueled J11 into the air. Can the J-20, which is unarmed and carrying little fuel, be that much heavier than the loaded Flanker?

Click to expand...

well, I don't have proof to show you that obviously. FWS-10's thrust right now in production is said to be even less than AL-31F, so < 125 kN. J-20 is designed for engine of over 150 kN. Someone like Maya would be able to say exactly what WS-15's designed thrust is. So, my two supports are this:
1) J-20 is designed for much higher thrust than what normal FWS-10 can supply, so it seems like they'd need to tune it up for meaningful testing. Also, J-20 was able to take off easily at shorter distance than J-10S without turning on the afterburners.
2) this is pretty much what the "big shrimps" are saying on Chinese forums.

another new pic about the test fly when from the J10's cockpit....i think this one is mostly true pic:

windracer said:

another new pic about the test fly when from the J10's cockpit....i think this one is mostly true pic:

Click to expand...

Obvious PS.

You're right. I never noticed the strong similarity between the J-20 and Mig 1.44!

The observation is from another forum yesterday, but there have been similar comments in this thread.

just4nikhilesh said:

i think its look like mig 1.44

Click to expand...

J-20 front view


Mig 1.44 front and side views


J-20 3/4 profile


J-20 side view

Here is a link to a Chinese aerospace article (written by actual professionals) on CD about how to reduce the RCS of canards. The Chinese is above my league here. Can some one do a basic translation?

tphuang said:

well, I don't have proof to show you that obviously. FWS-10's thrust right now in production is said to be even less than AL-31F, so < 125 kN. J-20 is designed for engine of over 150 kN. Someone like Maya would be able to say exactly what WS-15's designed thrust is. So, my two supports are this:
1) J-20 is designed for much higher thrust than what normal FWS-10 can supply, so it seems like they'd need to tune it up for meaningful testing. Also, J-20 was able to take off easily at shorter distance than J-10S without turning on the afterburners.
2) this is pretty much what the "big shrimps" are saying on Chinese forums.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the WS-10 was more powerful than the AL-31F.

Even if it has less thrust as Al-31F, it is giving an independence to China in aircraft industry, and potential for independent development of new and more powerfull engines. So I could say that even in this stage WS-10 has served its purpose, and is one of the most significant projects for Chinese aircraft industry.
In context of J-20, this engine might be good enough for prototype stage of work on this project, so that engineers could confirm aircrafts behavior in flight, but in later stages it will be needed to equip an prototype with new generation of engines, that should give an supercruise ability to J-20.
I've been reading some reports on WS-15 development, but I'm not sure if it is mature enough to be used in this stage of J-20s testing.

Centrist said:

I was under the impression that the WS-10 was more powerful than the AL-31F.

Click to expand...

Only just, certainly not enough get any decent performance from a 5th gen fighter.

tphuang said:

1) J-20 is designed for much higher thrust than what normal FWS-10 can supply, so it seems like they'd need to tune it up for meaningful testing. Also, J-20 was able to take off easily at shorter distance than J-10S without turning on the afterburners.

Click to expand...

I think it is more meaningful to look at the thrust-to-weight ratio of the prototype rather than the absolute thrust produced by the engines.

windracer said:

another new pic about the test fly when from the J10's cockpit....i think this one is mostly true pic:

Click to expand...

This is obviously done in Photoshop. Chase plane never flies ahead of the test plane.

Ambivalent said:

Eh, I distinctly recall Boeing stating the Silent Eagle had all the dogfighting agility of any other F-15 variant. Where do some of you come up with this stuff? Read the 9th paragraph.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It remains to be seen if the F-35 ends up coming in under the procurement average unit cost of an F-15.

You know, you buy what you can afford. Sometime good enough really is.

Click to expand...

Ya sure, adding CFT and internal weapons bay won't affect aerodynamic performance at all. I totally believe that.

siegecrossbow said:

Here is a link to a Chinese aerospace article (written by actual professionals) on CD about how to reduce the RCS of canards. The Chinese is above my league here. Can some one do a basic translation?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I read through it, nothing groundbreaking really. It basically concludes that sweeping the canards, lining them up with the wings, and using RAM can reduce its RCS quite a bit.