J-20... The New Generation Fighter

Re: New Generation Fighter

rhino123 said:

Actually if you come to think about it, engine and airframe, be it stealth or otherwise, is important, but so is the avionic, the control system (mechanical, digital or fly by wire). Also the missiles and weapon systems, defensive system, etc.

It is the entire package that I believe China might be wanting to look into. I might be wrong to be always focusing on the stealth feature of the project, but I think an improved variant of the J-10B might provide Chinese engineers and designer with valuable lesson and experience in designing a whole new package on an aircraft, using proven airframe, powerplant, etc. And while they are at that, the airforce tacticians and strategists might even start developing tactics using the stealth feature and new avionic and aircraft package on the said aircrafts. So it would be good to come up with something fast (by improving on the existing J-10B system) while the developer continue to design and develope a real 4 or 5 generation aircraft.

Click to expand...

no one would be willing to spend the money and develop a less than 4th gen project. because they know PLA wouldnt buy it, and there is no guarantee that others will, why waste your time and money?
its true that the new fighter will try to get the entire package, but due to China's industrial limitations, they are bound to have to put a heavier emphasis on one over another depending on PLAAF's strategic and tactical theory base. i am inclined to say that for now they are willing to risk compromising a lil bit of stealth (of course it'd still be considered as a stealth plane) for maneuverability if that is feasible.

Re: New Generation Fighter

kroko said:

I was not the first to mention taiwan. Just responding. Besides, can you deny what i wrote?



First, im no "kid". No insults please. Second, can you deny what i wrote?

Click to expand...

I can deny what you wrote. . It's not like the PLAAF to give much information about it's projects, espicially one as important as the 4th gen fighter. The mere fact that they admitted they have a 4th gen programme (regardless of whether the interview was "staged" or not), shows that they must have a good degree of confidence that it will work. It was the PLAAF's second highest ranking general or something like that which said it as well, improving it's reliability.
Then there's the fact the general gave a timeline (8-10 years I believe it was), said they had made numerous breakthroughs in stealth design, engine technology etc, that they would try to match the F-22 as close as possible, that it could incorporate the "4S", I believe indicates that they have confidence in themselves.


And how is a "staged" interview different to a normal interview anyway? Unless you're saying the general is just an actor or whatever, I don't see how you can claim it to be staged.


The whole taiwan, air superiority thing i believe isn't allowed on SDF, so let's not go there.

Re: New Generation Fighter

pla101prc said:

no one would be willing to spend the money and develop a less than 4th gen project. because they know PLA wouldnt buy it, and there is no guarantee that others will, why waste your time and money?
its true that the new fighter will try to get the entire package, but due to China's industrial limitations, they are bound to have to put a heavier emphasis on one over another depending on PLAAF's strategic and tactical theory base. i am inclined to say that for now they are willing to risk compromising a lil bit of stealth (of course it'd still be considered as a stealth plane) for maneuverability if that is feasible.

Click to expand...

Well the canard delta layout is slightly less stealthy than conventional layout. But with canard delta you wouldn't really need TVC, resulting in a lighter aircraft.

And on top of that, China is not likely to go for the maintenance intensive stealth features of F-22. B-2 suffers from the same problem.

Re: New Generation Fighter

Roger604 said:

Well the canard delta layout is slightly less stealthy than conventional layout. But with canard delta you wouldn't really need TVC, resulting in a lighter aircraft.

And on top of that, China is not likely to go for the maintenance intensive stealth features of F-22. B-2 suffers from the same problem.

Click to expand...

not necessarily, it is imperative that China does get enough knowledge and experience in something that we know will be widely applied in the future like stealth. its not about the particular fighter, its about building a technological and industrial foundation.

Re: New Generation Fighter

Bltizo said:

I can deny what you wrote. . It's not like the PLAAF to give much information about it's projects, espicially one as important as the 4th gen fighter. The mere fact that they admitted they have a 4th gen programme (regardless of whether the interview was "staged" or not), shows that they must have a good degree of confidence that it will work. It was the PLAAF's second highest ranking general or something like that which said it as well, improving it's reliability.
Then there's the fact the general gave a timeline (8-10 years I believe it was), said they had made numerous breakthroughs in stealth design, engine technology etc, that they would try to match the F-22 as close as possible, that it could incorporate the "4S", I believe indicates that they have confidence in themselves.


And how is a "staged" interview different to a normal interview anyway? Unless you're saying the general is just an actor or whatever, I don't see how you can claim it to be staged.


The whole taiwan, air superiority thing i believe isn't allowed on SDF, so let's not go there.

Click to expand...

one analyst said that if PLAAF is willing to reveal the project, it means they at least have concluded on what design to work with. and they have a pretty good idea of how to get this project done, otherwise there wouldnt be a timeline

Re: New Generation Fighter

Roger604 said:

Well the canard delta layout is slightly less stealthy than conventional layout. But with canard delta you wouldn't really need TVC, resulting in a lighter aircraft.

And on top of that, China is not likely to go for the maintenance intensive stealth features of F-22. B-2 suffers from the same problem.

Click to expand...

Well, with TVC, you also won't need canards. And canards weigh a significant amount too, especially with the equipment to move them around.

The PLAAF can probably handle the maintenance needs of a F-22 class fighter.

Re: New Generation Fighter

Skywatcher said:

Well, with TVC, you also won't need canards. And canards weigh a significant amount too, especially with the equipment to move them around.

The PLAAF can probably handle the maintenance needs of a F-22 class fighter.

Click to expand...

from the sound of it, the next gen fighter will have both TVC engine and canards. And according to all the big shrimps, AVIC1 doesn't believe canards will actually increase the RCS that much.

Re: New Generation Fighter

Skywatcher said:

Well, with TVC, you also won't need canards. And canards weigh a significant amount too, especially with the equipment to move them around.

The PLAAF can probably handle the maintenance needs of a F-22 class fighter.

Click to expand...

Most fighter jets have two configurations: (1) 2 wings plus 2 rear horizontal stabilizers plus 1 to 2 vertical stabilizers, or (2) 2 wings plus 2 canards plus 1 to 2 vertical stabilizers. This applies to the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, Eurofighter, J-10, J-7, J-8, MiG-29, Su-27, most cargo planes, most passenger planes, and most recreational planes. For most fixed wing aircraft, adding vectored thrust WILL INCREASE the weight beyond the norm.

I am not an aerospace engineer, but from what I have read, the Su-27's and F-22's vectored thrusts do not replace rear horizontal stabilizers or front horizontal stabilizers aka canards. Such vectored thrust allows a jet to move upwards, downwards, sideways, and/or diagonally. If a jet's body is "parallel" to the earth's surface and the jet is flying a path that is parallel to the earth's surface, then the jet directs its vectored thrust 25 degrees downward, the result is the jet's body will stay parallel to the earth's surface while its flightpath will move diagonally upward.

Horizontal stabilizers, whether located at the front or rear, allow a jet to to pitch upwards and downwards, or rotate on the vertical axis. If a jet's body is "parallel" to the earth's surface and the jet is flying a path that is parallel to the earth's surface, then the jet changes the leading edge of the canards from 0 degrees to 25 degrees upward (relative to the canards' pivot center), the jet's front half will rotate upwards relative to the jet's center of gravity while the jet's rear half will rotate downwards relative the jet's center of gravity.

In regard to the Su-27 and F-22, a jet is A LOT MORE aerodynamic when the jet changes its vertical flight path by using its rear or front horizontal stabilizers to alter its pitch than when using vectored thrust to change its vertical flight path. The former jet will be using using its sharp nose and front edges to slice through the air, but the latter jet will be using its whole topside surface to push through the air. A jet is obviously A LOT aerodynamic from the frontal aspect than from its topside aspect.

I read the Su-27's and the F-22's vectored thrusts are good for adding lift when the jet's wings are not providing enough lift, but vectored thrust is BAD for quick instantaneous turns and quick sustained turns. The Su-27's/F-22's vectored thrusts reinforce the wing's vertical lift, but it does NOT allow the jet to pitch and to yaw. The Su-27's/F-22's asymmetrical vectored thrusts can rotate a jet, and all asymmetrical horizontal stabilizers can rotate a jet's body, to pitch, and to help the wings lift the jet. If a jet has multiple vectored thrusts (like the Harrier or F-35C), then the vectored thrusts can be used to lift the jet, to pitch, and to rotate. If a jet has advanced vectored thrusts, then the vectored thrusts can be used to lift, to pitch, to yaw, and to rotate.

This is what I read about aerodynamics, but my source could be wrong.

Re: New Generation Fighter

Having both TVC and Canards is pretty redundant, the extra percentage of performance for such a significant structural change and cost, far outweighs the benefits. Canards lifts the nose and turns the frame faster by changing the direction momentum of the front section and transferring the energy to the rear. While TVC alone needs to first transfer the momentum direction of the rear of the frame, and then transfer the energy from the rear to the front which is signifcantly slower and stresses the airframe more. I've got a more detailed post about this in previous post, but I'm not gonna repeat myself.

Personally having canards is the safe way of achieving increase manuverability, having a TVC function along with a decent engines are two already technological, costly, and time consuming ordeals. Relying on TVC for the manuverability factor requires the nation to already have the engine maturity to work with. Having canards a nation can use less advanced engines without TVC and instead use the already tested canards for the manuverability factor. So even if China doesn't have TVC and superior engine, they can have a canard fighter with a decent engine, without the technological and time consuming wait of the engine issue. If it was canardless they'll need to wait on the TVC which who knows how long it could take. But canards is a ready to go, and tested which any engine can be used with it, to give the criteria of supreme manuverability.

Re: New Generation Fighter

For the stealth fighter