zoom
Junior Member
I find some J-10B photos that some similar to J-20:
The one in the foreground doesn't have DSI intake. Are you saying the one at the back only is J10b?
J-20... The New Generation Fighter II
- Thread starter Asymptote
- Start date
- Status
The one in the foreground doesn't have DSI intake. Are you saying the one at the back only is J10b?
vesicles
Colonel
Yes, the one in the foreground is J-10A while the one on the back is J-10B.
OFF TOPIC
Perhaps you meant to become a citizen but not to get a green card. Only legal residents of the US or firstly US citizens may join the US Military. One must have a Green Card first if he's a non-citizen to join the US military. Fact.
Perhaps you meant to become a citizen but not to get a green card. Only legal residents of the US or firstly US citizens may join the US Military. One must have a Green Card first if he's a non-citizen to join the US military. Fact.
OFF TOPIC
vesicles
Colonel
yes, I'm sorry. I meant to say non-citizens with green cards trying to get citizenship... Thanks for catching that.
No problem....
kwaigonegin
Colonel
looks like it. The tailfin of the one further away gives it away as a J-10B.
The Trefor Moss article, posted by Kyli
The Western media is quite annoying at times, and it is not simply a matter of China bashing and twisting facts, but mainly that they just get things wrong. They seem incapable of analyzing anything that is not American or European. Maybe the best thing would be to round up a large number of them and send them to "re-education camp". They would be forced to study The Art of War. For a few examples, I am putting some quotes below (from Sunzi, not Trefor Moss).
A related point is that it reopens the debate over the f-22 in the US at a point where it could add to political difficulties in country, and especially for Gates. Remember, the general spoke about the progress of this project on TV last year not too long after the f-22 was cancelled. In my view, that was just a preview of the show we got in the last couple of weeks, and it was part of the same strategy. From that point of view, although I think he's wrong, Trefor Moss can be forgiven for thinking that the timing of was "carefully stage-managed". At least he gets the point that it creates special difficulties for Gates.
Trefor Moss (in the article posted by Kyli that everybody has been complaining about) manages to raise important questions but gives very silly answers. The focus of the article is the openness of the information, which he calls "bravura". We have all noticed that, quite gradually, we (the fans) have been allowed to see photos of new stuff just a bit sooner than a few years back. The fact of the matter is that China is a bit more confident now, and allowing more information to flow is much easier than trying to keep it secret. It is not only military projects that the world is allowed to see a bit more of, but also natural calamities, mine accidents, examples of injustice of officials, etc. The step-by-step "opening up", in the field of information, has been going on for a while, and it is not a matter of "bravura", but perhaps, simplifying the work of the state in this area.
The interesting thing is that THIS particular instance of "openess", the J-20 "strip tease" show, is that it was quite different from anything we've seen before. At the same time, it is quite different, in style, from from anything we are seeing NOW as well. What I am saying is that the "strip tease" was a unique event, and we should not expect to be tanatalized in this way every time something new comes out. For example, there has been a bit of a buzz lately about the ASBM, but it was generated by the American media, not by any special revelations we have seen. It is similar with other projects: there's nothing new.
By not seeing the uniqueness of this event, lumping everything together and even attributing this to a change in cultural attitude, the author misses the whole point, which is the strategic significance of this event. Sure enough, though, after dismissing the Chinese "mystique", he feels compelled to downplay the J-20 as old technology... but then he makes his point by bringing out similarities with f-22 and f-35! And sure enough, he has swallowed the bait: he ends the article by advocating the reopening of f-22 production as a hedge against problems with the f-35.
P.S. Sorry if this is yesterday's topic, but this thread moves too fast, and it took me a while to look up all the quotes.
The Western media is quite annoying at times, and it is not simply a matter of China bashing and twisting facts, but mainly that they just get things wrong. They seem incapable of analyzing anything that is not American or European. Maybe the best thing would be to round up a large number of them and send them to "re-education camp". They would be forced to study The Art of War. For a few examples, I am putting some quotes below (from Sunzi, not Trefor Moss).
China is showing an aircraft that COULD be a reasonable f-22 hunter and a good f-35 hunter. Do we know this for a fact? Of course not, but NEITHER DOES THE PENTAGON. As has been pointed out by many on either side of the argument, there are too many unknowns: radar, RAM coating, data fusion, data links, etc.. Either way, the Pentagon, as well as the military establishments of all the countries in the region currently allied with the US, are now forced to devote some additional resources to counter 'a reasonable f-22 hunter and a good f-35 hunter'. It won't do to speculate that the new airplane is inferior.
This is relevant, because the f-35 program is somewhat of a sore point between the US and it's allies as it is. The presentation of the J-20, which MAY/COULD exceed its capabilities will simply add to this friction. Everytime a customer changes their mind about this plane, it adds to the costs for the rest, and especially the US. There was a short article in Aviation Week which speculated that the J-20 could help sales of the f-35. But I think all but one of the reader comments put down the f-35 as useless, ignoring the opinion of the author. There is also friction with some, apparently, over the decision not to sell the f-22.
A related point is that it reopens the debate over the f-22 in the US at a point where it could add to political difficulties in country, and especially for Gates. Remember, the general spoke about the progress of this project on TV last year not too long after the f-22 was cancelled. In my view, that was just a preview of the show we got in the last couple of weeks, and it was part of the same strategy. From that point of view, although I think he's wrong, Trefor Moss can be forgiven for thinking that the timing of was "carefully stage-managed". At least he gets the point that it creates special difficulties for Gates.
We all know that this project was given a certain priority, and if you want to ask about the significance of the "timing", the answer is obvious: the project was ready for testing! Still, the reason that this particular project was revealed in a way that created such a sensation does have something to do with "timing", at least, in the general sense. Here I'm not talking about the specific date, but about the economic crisis that hit the world, and primarily the US and its allies, in 2008 and which continues to this day. The revelation of this new plane is aimed at forcing the US to spend money it would not otherwise spend. China is "attacking" the US at its weakest point: the economy. It is "attack[ing] a position [the US] must relieve".
As a weapon of war, a shooting war, this airplane is not a reality yet. It'll take some years. But if war is seen in this broader sense, as seen by Sunzi, the J-20 is already playing a big role as a weapon, quite possibly as big a role as it will ever have. It is impacting it's adversary's economy at a time when it is weak, creating dissension in its ranks and attacking its alliances.
Trefor Moss (in the article posted by Kyli that everybody has been complaining about) manages to raise important questions but gives very silly answers. The focus of the article is the openness of the information, which he calls "bravura". We have all noticed that, quite gradually, we (the fans) have been allowed to see photos of new stuff just a bit sooner than a few years back. The fact of the matter is that China is a bit more confident now, and allowing more information to flow is much easier than trying to keep it secret. It is not only military projects that the world is allowed to see a bit more of, but also natural calamities, mine accidents, examples of injustice of officials, etc. The step-by-step "opening up", in the field of information, has been going on for a while, and it is not a matter of "bravura", but perhaps, simplifying the work of the state in this area.
The interesting thing is that THIS particular instance of "openess", the J-20 "strip tease" show, is that it was quite different from anything we've seen before. At the same time, it is quite different, in style, from from anything we are seeing NOW as well. What I am saying is that the "strip tease" was a unique event, and we should not expect to be tanatalized in this way every time something new comes out. For example, there has been a bit of a buzz lately about the ASBM, but it was generated by the American media, not by any special revelations we have seen. It is similar with other projects: there's nothing new.
By not seeing the uniqueness of this event, lumping everything together and even attributing this to a change in cultural attitude, the author misses the whole point, which is the strategic significance of this event. Sure enough, though, after dismissing the Chinese "mystique", he feels compelled to downplay the J-20 as old technology... but then he makes his point by bringing out similarities with f-22 and f-35! And sure enough, he has swallowed the bait: he ends the article by advocating the reopening of f-22 production as a hedge against problems with the f-35.
P.S. Sorry if this is yesterday's topic, but this thread moves too fast, and it took me a while to look up all the quotes.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Bill Sweetnam latest article He said a lot of good thing about Canard
Sometimes the analysis of a new design is one of those areas where you get a whack-on-the-side-of-the-head moment.
This one was induced by the discussion here of the origins of the F-35 design, wherein I suddenly realized what the J-20 reminded me of - Lockheed's immediate pre-JAST/JSF design, tested in the form of a large powered mock-up.
The similarity is quite close in terms of wing/canard relationship, sweep angles, and body shaping, although the Chengdu engineers decided to align the trailing edges of the canards (and rudders) with the trailing edges of the opposite wings, giving them more sweep at the quarter-chord line.
I remember talking this over with Paul Bevilaqua at the 1993 Powered Lift Conference in Palo Alto. If I remember correctly, one reason for the canard delta was that it was good for the cross-sectional area distribution (area ruling) and hence transonic drag.
The challenge was that the shaft-driven lift fan design inevitably had a big cross-section peak well forward, where the inlets wrapped around the fan bay (it needed a large-diameter fan and lots of airflow to work). A canard delta compensated for that by moving the thickest part of the wing as far back as possible.
Somehow I don't think we're going to see a J-20 with a lift fan. However, don't be surprised if the weapons bays turn out to be more capacious (and versatile) than on other designs. It looks like the idea of the canard configuration is to get a large-volume mid-body section through the transonic zone and into supersonic flight with minimal fuss, bother and expenditure of fuel.
Bevilaqua's paper on the origins of the F-35 design cites risk as the reason for the reversion to a quad-tail design for the JSF competition in 1996 - and at the time both Eurofighter and Saab were dealing with unexpected issues in this area.
However, another Lockheed Martin engineer explained that the final JSF planform design was more flexible in terms of being enlarged to meet Navy requirements (given that LO constraints and commonality mandated the same sweep angle for all versions).
That may have been the biggest non-STOVL driver to affect the design, although canards were definitely not popular in the US in the mid-1990s - and I suspect that fitting the canard design on to an LHA elevator might have been a challenge.
Sometimes the analysis of a new design is one of those areas where you get a whack-on-the-side-of-the-head moment.
This one was induced by the discussion here of the origins of the F-35 design, wherein I suddenly realized what the J-20 reminded me of - Lockheed's immediate pre-JAST/JSF design, tested in the form of a large powered mock-up.
The similarity is quite close in terms of wing/canard relationship, sweep angles, and body shaping, although the Chengdu engineers decided to align the trailing edges of the canards (and rudders) with the trailing edges of the opposite wings, giving them more sweep at the quarter-chord line.
I remember talking this over with Paul Bevilaqua at the 1993 Powered Lift Conference in Palo Alto. If I remember correctly, one reason for the canard delta was that it was good for the cross-sectional area distribution (area ruling) and hence transonic drag.
The challenge was that the shaft-driven lift fan design inevitably had a big cross-section peak well forward, where the inlets wrapped around the fan bay (it needed a large-diameter fan and lots of airflow to work). A canard delta compensated for that by moving the thickest part of the wing as far back as possible.
Somehow I don't think we're going to see a J-20 with a lift fan. However, don't be surprised if the weapons bays turn out to be more capacious (and versatile) than on other designs. It looks like the idea of the canard configuration is to get a large-volume mid-body section through the transonic zone and into supersonic flight with minimal fuss, bother and expenditure of fuel.
Bevilaqua's paper on the origins of the F-35 design cites risk as the reason for the reversion to a quad-tail design for the JSF competition in 1996 - and at the time both Eurofighter and Saab were dealing with unexpected issues in this area.
However, another Lockheed Martin engineer explained that the final JSF planform design was more flexible in terms of being enlarged to meet Navy requirements (given that LO constraints and commonality mandated the same sweep angle for all versions).
That may have been the biggest non-STOVL driver to affect the design, although canards were definitely not popular in the US in the mid-1990s - and I suspect that fitting the canard design on to an LHA elevator might have been a challenge.
BAJRANGBAL
New Member
Weapon bay may be small as seen on F22...
Last edited:
BAJRANGBAL
New Member
More flights will come soon...
Last edited:
- Status