Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread

[MiG-23MLD]

I was more wondering what you thought about the trailing edge, and edge alignment of the J-20 plan view I posted, but ok.



The T-50 does have a good aerodynamic lay out, espicially in terms of the wide engine placement and the "pancake" in the middle for weapons and the blending of the fuselage. The movable LEX are also innovative and the general layout continues the legacy of the flanker's design.
I just don't like how the T-50's engines are sort of in a "pod" with the inlet directly in front of it, like the flanker (which, I believe was one of the largest contributors to RCS). It could be corrected with S ducts or radar blockers of course.

I think people just think the T-50 doesn't look as modern because from many angles it looks identical to the F-22. But I suppose those two are as different as the Flanker was to the eagle.
I personally prefer the J-20 because of its (current) "cleaner" look than the PAK FA and how it's control surface layout is a bit different.

-----------------

Also, just for funsies, here's a checklist which Martian from SDF posted:



Of course there are a few important things missing like datalinks, AESA, and passive sensors but from what we can see the current thing doesn't fare up too badly.

i understand you very well, but it looks both Sukhoi and Chengdu have not gone for total stealth at least now.
The latest pictures i saw show a very conventional wing shape and canard configuration with zero stealth besides probably RAM
In this view is obvious they did not follow planforming in the wing and canard, their trailing edges are not aligned, the canards are rather conventional high aspect swept types and the wing seems a delta
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=191246&d=1293596304

They are just caring about inlet return and jet engine returns that are going to be very low on the J-20 ensuring a good stealth capability from a front view but not from a aft view.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=191251&d=1293602482

According to what i have read and watched the return signature of any object is related to the position it has with respect the radar, so in order to reduce radar emmision back to the emmiter you need to reflect them away from the source so mathematical calculations are needed, the planform aligment has to be done upon a reflecting angle, the T-50, F-35 and F-22 have their trailing edges of both wing and tailplanes at the same swept angle and the same is for the leading edges, stealth aircraft need to keep the same reflecting angle,

But judging by the pictures the J-20 does not follow that it it simply has a wing canard platform similar to the J-10 and perhaps MiG-1.44 grafted on a forebody of an F-22/F-35 styled fighter, so it combines stealthy features with LO characteristics with conventional non LO ones.

The nozzles are rounded showing zero LO treatment and the aftbody is a reminicense of the MiG-1.44.

The aircraft is not sleek but rather heavy, concentrating most of the aircraft volume at the center axis of the aircraft thus increasing its drag, they did what the americans did on the F-22; the T-50 in the other hand distributes the volume of the aircraft on its frontal area more uniformly achieving a better lift drag ratio without sacrificing internal　volume,

 

[dingyibvs]

i understand you very well, but it looks both Sukhoi and Chengdu have not gone for total stealth at least now.
The latest pictures i saw show a very conventional wing shape and canard configuration with zero stealth besides probably RAM
In this view is obvious they did not follow planforming in the wing and canard, their trailing edges are not aligned, the canards are rather conventional high aspect swept types and the wing seems a delta
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=191246&d=1293596304

They are just caring about inlet return and jet engine returns that are going to be very low on the J-20 ensuring a good stealth capability from a front view but not from a aft view.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=191251&d=1293602482

According to what i have read and watched the return signature of any object is related to the position it has with respect the radar, so in order to reduce radar emmision back to the emmiter you need to reflect them away from the source so mathematical calculations are needed, the planform aligment has to be done upon a reflecting angle, the T-50, F-35 and F-22 have their trailing edges of both wing and tailplanes at the same swept angle and the same is for the leading edges, stealth aircraft need to keep the same reflecting angle,

But judging by the pictures the J-20 does not follow that it it simply has a wing canard platform similar to the J-10 and perhaps MiG-1.44 grafted on a forebody of an F-22/F-35 styled fighter, so it combines stealthy features with LO characteristics with conventional non LO ones.

The nozzles are rounded showing zero LO treatment and the aftbody is a reminicense of the MiG-1.44.

You have a lot of very vague arguments, you need to bring more specifics to the conversation. Your argument of the planes' angles need to reflect them away from the source doesn't make any sense because you have no idea from which direction the radar beam is coming from. There is no angle that allows you to always deflect a wave away. Based on my understanding, the angles are added to avoid 90 degree angles which would represent maximal DIFFRACTION(not reflection!!) points. A radar wave hitting a plane would travel along the surface of the plane as creeping waves, which would be absorbed by RAM as it travels. When the creeping waves hit an edge, it would diffract into all directions, including back to the source. Angled wings try to avoid such a sharp edge as much as possible.

Also, none of us know what the shape of the JXX's wings are, so let's wait for better pictures to come out before commenting on that.

One more thing, the engines are not the final production engines, it makes little sense to slap on a new nozzle to an existing engine for the first prototype. Also, the F-22's nozzles are made flat to reduce IR sig, not radar sig. A sphere(i.e. rounded) would give you the lowest radar return, not the other way around.

 

[gf0012-aust]

They are just caring about inlet return and jet engine returns that are going to be very low on the J-20 ensuring a good stealth capability from a front view but not from a aft view.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=191251&d=1293602482

here we go again, someone sees a partially blocked S bend and assumes that it's signal management for incoming waveforms - pity that its part of the FOD mechanism. Almost zip to do with sig management

According to what i have read and watched the return signature of any object is related to the position it has with respect the radar, so in order to reduce radar emmision back to the emmiter you need to reflect them away from the source so mathematical calculations are needed, the planform aligment has to be done upon a reflecting angle, the T-50, F-35 and F-22 have their trailing edges of both wing and tailplanes at the same swept angle and the same is for the leading edges, stealth aircraft need to keep the same reflecting angle,

nice theory but the reality is that its nonsense as whoever made it up assumed that signal management is about redirecting signals to mash the strength. sig management is also about dead returns. signals don't always reflect - and the use of angles to manage such returns was US first generation VLO technology - ie its 35 years old and was the first thing that they abandoned when they went to their next gen management solution

But judging by the pictures the J-20 does not follow that it it simply has a wing canard platform similar to the J-10 and perhaps MiG-1.44 grafted on a forebody of an F-22/F-35 styled fighter, so it combines stealthy features with LO characteristics with conventional non LO ones.

again, where is the VLO and LO element on the platform?

The nozzles are rounded showing zero LO treatment and the forebody is a reminicense of the MiG-1.44.

rounded nozzles have what impact on VLO/LO design? where are nozzles treated for VLO/LO design management? you do realise that a flat plane nozzle would have a greater chance of triggering a return - assuming that the system was able to interrogate the rear aspect with any degree of confidence in the first place?


HINT to ALL. Can we NOT make up things about how VLO and LO actually works. Like the commentary that was attributed to Martian on another forum, some of this is borderline nonsensical.

eg the comment about diamond aspects for sig management is laughable. it was an attribute used on the very first manned in service asset because the science of the time had not come to grips with dead returns. Both the US and the Germans came up with a solution that the Russians had formed on paper but never had the computing power to generate complex shapes to bring it to fruition.

Lets try and keep this a serious thread rather than some attribution to Buck Rogers....

 

[gf0012-aust]

Your argument of the planes' angles need to reflect them away from the source doesn't make any sense because you have no idea from which direction the radar beam is coming from. There is no angle that allows you to always deflect a wave away. Based on my understanding, the angles are added to avoid 90 degree angles which would represent maximal DIFFRACTION(not reflection!!) points. A radar wave hitting a plane would travel along the surface of the plane as creeping waves, which would be absorbed by RAM as it travels. When the creeping waves hit an edge, it would diffract into all directions, including back to the source. Angled wings try to avoid such a sharp edge as much as possible.

I'm glad that someone else also understands basic waveguide and waveform behaviour here.... (actually a few others do as well, but they're probably rolling their eyes to the back of their head in frustration as well)

 

[Blitzo]

i understand you very well, but it looks both Sukhoi and Chengdu have not gone for total stealth at least now.
The latest pictures i saw show a very conventional wing shape and canard configuration with zero stealth besides probably RAM
In this view is obvious they did not follow planforming in the wing and canard, their trailing edges are not aligned, the canards are rather conventional high aspect swept types and the wing seems a delta
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=191246&d=1293596304

Yes we'll have to wait for pictures which can fully show the wings and canards.

They are just caring about inlet return and jet engine returns that are going to be very low on the J-20 ensuring a good stealth capability from a front view but not from a aft view.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=191251&d=1293602482

I agree the engine nozzles aren't stealthy...

According to what i have read and watched the return signature of any object is related to the position it has with respect the radar, so in order to reduce radar emmision back to the emmiter you need to reflect them away from the source so mathematical calculations are needed, the planform aligment has to be done upon a reflecting angle, the T-50, F-35 and F-22 have their trailing edges of both wing and tailplanes at the same swept angle and the same is for the leading edges, stealth aircraft need to keep the same reflecting angle,

But judging by the pictures the J-20 does not follow that it it simply has a wing canard platform similar to the J-10 and perhaps MiG-1.44 grafted on a forebody of an F-22/F-35 styled fighter, so it combines stealthy features with LO characteristics with conventional non LO ones.

The nozzles are rounded showing zero LO treatment and the aftbody is a reminicense of the MiG-1.44.

... But the argument depends on whether the canards and wings are aligned in the rear aspect -- right now we just don't know.

Look at this hypothetical plan view of the J-20:
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5050/j20edgealignment1.jpg
In your opinion, does the rear alignment in this picture make sense?

 

[Feanor]

I'm glad that someone else also understands basic waveguide and waveform behaviour here.... (actually a few others do as well, but they're probably rolling their eyes to the back of their head in frustration as well)

What can you say about the new Chinese aircraft in the photo?

 

[mn5207]

it's posted on an official chinese newspaper that a new engine has finished 4 month of endurance testing. It didnd't mention WS-10A specifically, but clearly it is WS-10A due to the timeframe and the description of the engine. That's considered to be the final test before certificaiton, so production should begin sometime late this year.

old pictures
CG photo

 

[gf0012-aust]

What can you say about the new Chinese aircraft in the photo?

off a real photo or of the line art?

the line art tells us nothing - and I question whether its based on anything of substance. eg canard layout against the rest of the planform is questionable. Plus, there's no reference on the cant of the skegs, size of the skegs, there's no clarity on space between the engines in the underbelly, there's no evidence of the shape of the inlet and how far it goes back. There's no evidence of the degree of angle relative to inlets on the chine (and again the canards will impact upon chine design) etc etc.....

quite frankly some of the claims about what the design achieves are nonsensical without reference to a 3d image and or scaled modelling.

eg RAM is a selective attribute and atypically is no greater than 20% of the surface area (and that is optimistic and generous by some margin) - where then does the RAM get applied?

RAM also is not a definable attribute - some seem to think that its just another widget that you paint on and hey presto, "magilla the gorilla" turns into an invisible elf.

A little more circumspection and caution in making claims about what a plane can do are in order - esp when basic terms are abused and confused

I'd like to see some clearer all aspect shots first - and not tarmac shots. I'd also like to speak to one of my chinese colleagues who does actually deal with chnese platforms and who I trust to have a balanced view of the world.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Can one really tell that RAM or other radar absorbers is applied just from a photo even a clearer one?

Even something as simple as the cockpit glass requires a special coating to reduce radar reflectivity of items within the cockpit. I seriously doubt the russkis would have shared such tech with the chinese. Nor can one ID that purely from blurry photos such as those published.

Having said that, academic research publications does reveal that China has performed quite a bit of research into wave absorbing materials eg nanometer absorption etc with applications to aircraft. Such technology derived from US and other countries are not exactly secret due to patenting information. Also as early as 1998, a chinese company called seek optics was marketing radar absorbing coatings called SF18 for missiles and planes. Whilst it may not be as effective as current US stealth tech, so I do think it is not outside the bounds of Chinese capabilities to come up with RAM coatings for a fighter. There are not surprisingly rumors stating China has even used RAM coatings on all its fighters (including the J-11 and J-10).

Examples of academic research:
http://www.cst-china.cn/pdf/publication/14cstchinapaper.pdf
http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb09/16.08080202.pdf
http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier79/17.07101002.pdf

Chinese companies does RCS reduction calculations for RAM coating and shaping so its not exactly western only science.
http://www.cst-china.cn/pdf/application/CSTAppNoteRadarCrossSectionRCS.pdf

Personally, I think China has progressed beyond 1st gen stealth in theory.

In practice, how effective and can they actually reduce visibility not just in the radar realm but other electronic emissions and IR spectrum etc to come up with a true stealth a/c, um, that's the question which can't be answered at this time.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can one really tell that RAM or other radar absorbers is applied just from a photo even a clearer one?

There are some "tells" where you would expect to find it - its not applied like van gogh on a daffodil wine drinking binge.

Even something as simple as the cockpit glass requires a special coating to reduce radar reflectivity of items within the cockpit. I seriously doubt the russkis would have shared such tech with the chinese. Nor can one ID that purely from blurry photos such as those published.

and where has there been any evidence that the chinese have applied iridium or gold coatings on any of their aircraft? None that I can see. No doubt some clown will try to photoshop it in at some stage, but the presence or lack of it does start to point to how sophisticated their technology is

Having said that, academic research publications does reveal that China has performed quite a bit of research into wave absorbing materials eg nanometer absorption etc with applications to aircraft. Such technology derived from US and other countries are not exactly secret due to patenting information.

You do realise that not all info on patents (esp those deemed in the national interest) are withheld in detail? a good and recent relevant example is Metalstorms electrical pulse gun. The salient points are not on the public IP registers.

Also as early as 1998, a chinese company called seek optics was marketing radar absorbing coatings called SF18 for missiles and planes. Whilst it may not be as effective as current US stealth tech, so I do think it is not outside the bounds of Chinese capabilities to come up with RAM coatings for a fighter. There are not surprisingly rumors stating China has even used RAM coatings on all its fighters (including the J-11 and J-10).

early RAM coating was literally chicken wire and a bitumen coating applied to it. No one is doubting the ability of the chinese to do it - but I get absolutely crapped off at people making claims about a platforms capability based on foggy public images when there are a whole pile of other tells not in place to support it. eg iridium screening, misunderstanding FOD management as signal blockers, and talking about diamond wedging as contemp design credibility.

Give me a break. Thats OK for the idiots on Youtube but lets try and sift out tyhe rubbish before it gets onto here. There are enough crap sites already trading in this rubbish - we don't need to tailgate them

Examples of academic research:
http://www.cst-china.cn/pdf/publication/14cstchinapaper.pdf
http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb09/16.08080202.pdf
http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier79/17.07101002.pdf

Chinese companies does RCS reduction calculations for RAM coating and shaping so its not exactly western only science.
http://www.cst-china.cn/pdf/application/CSTAppNoteRadarCrossSectionRCS.pdf

The US had RAM coatings applied to manned aircraft in 1956. They had RAM applied to unmanned aircraft in 1966. Its hardly ground breaking stuff. You still need to get it right. more to the point, you just can't "paint" it on and do a houdini on said platform. It doesn't work like that.

Personally, I think China has progressed beyond 1st gen stealth in theory.

I'm seeing a hybrid of 3 different VLO technology sets on this tarmac platform, they are NOT sympathetic. That raises alarm bells for me that this is not the real deal in a number of areas. You can put lipstick on a pig and its still a pig

In practice, how effective and can they actually reduce visibility not just in the radar realm but other electronic emissions and IR spectrum etc to come up with a true stealth a/c, um, that's the question which can't be answered at this time.

and thats a series of questions that are far more important to supporting the notion that they have made advances than any rolling model sitting on a tarmac for a photoshoot.

They've only just transitioned from Israeli, Russian, UK and French radar systems, they have not recovered from losing all their AEW experts from the air crash a few years back (another example of lack of awareness as nobody else would have permitted their entire AWACs/AEW A Team to travel on the one plane). basic cues like this cause me to question. Just because the chinese managed to militarise a US ADB2 civlilian radar system does not mean that they are suddenly radar developers and designers. etc etc......

more caution and less unbridled wishful thinking is needed here.

 

[MiG-23MLD]

You have a lot of very vague arguments, you need to bring more specifics to the conversation. Your argument of the planes' angles need to reflect them away from the source doesn't make any sense because you have no idea from which direction the radar beam is coming from. There is no angle that allows you to always deflect a wave away. Based on my understanding, the angles are added to avoid 90 degree angles which would represent maximal DIFFRACTION(not reflection!!) points. A radar wave hitting a plane would travel along the surface of the plane as creeping waves, which would be absorbed by RAM as it travels. When the creeping waves hit an edge, it would diffract into all directions, including back to the source. Angled wings try to avoid such a sharp edge as much as possible.

Also, none of us know what the shape of the JXX's wings are, so let's wait for better pictures to come out before commenting on that.

One more thing, the engines are not the final production engines, it makes little sense to slap on a new nozzle to an existing engine for the first prototype. Also, the F-22's nozzles are made flat to reduce IR sig, not radar sig. A sphere(i.e. rounded) would give you the lowest radar return, not the other way around.

If you watch this video they say the angle used for deflecting away radar emisions away from the source is 30 degrees watch minute 13
Stealth - A Russian Invention. (english subtitles)

Now this implies the trailing and leading edges are limited to these angles which can be 30 or 270 from a frontal leading edge or 120 or 60 from a trailing edge or viceversa.

A canard with such geometry is a a triangle and is of low aspect, such shape limit vortex creation because to create vortices you need highly swept angles as those seen on LERXs or high aspect canards to delay the flow and create vortices at the end of the wing tip.

The J-20 has basicly a wing and canard configuation very conventional and without those features.

Its canards and wing traling edges are not aligned with the same angle reflecting aerodynamic compromises and the canard and wing are not on the same horizontal plane to retain aligment with the engine nacelles.
see this image reflects what i am saying
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=ephhyd&s=5

and this is an aircraft with stealthy canards

http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ac/x-36-2585183.jpg

The X-36 has canards adapted for stealth

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you watch this video they say the angle used for deflecting away radar emisions away from the source is 30 degrees watch minute 13
Stealth - A Russian Invention. (english subtitles)

VLO/LO was NOT a Russian invention. The Germans first initiated spectrum management in 1912. I suggest that you read the sticky created on the history of "Stealth" before continuing on

Now this implies the trailing and leading edges are limited to these angles which can be 30 or 270 from a frontal leading edge or 120 or 60 from a trailing edge or viceversa.

A canard with such geometry is a a triangle and is of low aspect, such shape limit vortex creation because to create vortices you need highly swept angles as those seen on LERXs or high aspect canards to delay the flow and create vortices at the end of the wing tip.

The J-20 has basicly a wing and canard configuation very conventional and without those features.

Its canards and wing traling edges are not aligned with the same angle reflecting aerodynamic compromises and the canard and wing are not on the same horizontal plane to retain aligment with the engine nacelles.
see this image reflects what i am saying
Image - TinyPic - Free Image Hosting, Photo Sharing & Video Hosting

and this is an aircraft with stealthy canards

http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ac/x-36-2585183.jpg

The X-36 has canards adapted for stealth

Sorry, this is nonsense. Canards are not designed for signature management, they are designed to generate or manage lift. The bottom line for signature management is that unless you are actively managing the spectrum, then any aircraft angle cannot be managed for its signal return. They are brief moments in time where millimetres of drift will alter a return. Its why this concept of reflecting signals back to the probing asset is a nonsense.

It does not work like this. People still treat this as a bastardised doppler event when it is not.

There is a reason as to why the ultimate iteration is based on a blended wing solution set, where there are limited planars involved. That chinese concept has 3 discrete planes in play - and in actual fact there are 4 (although none of the so called "experts" being quoted or referenced) have identified it. 4 planing influences makes this aircraft incredibly optimistic if its touted as VLO.

LO potential - yes. VLO? Absolutely not.

 

[aussienscale]

This is getting rather frustrating, can we have these threads combined into a Chinese Airforce Discussions & Update Thread ? (mods please ?) Some of the comments are starting to take a F35 Hysteria tinge to them, so lets keep it in check and see where China goes with this ? But as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, they are not there yet, by a long shot and we are talking about very limited real information from a country that controls every single piece of information that leaves it shores.

Mod edit: Done.

 

[Sampanviking]

I must certainly do not claim any Defence Engineering knowledge, but I have been surprised by the size of this J20. I had been expecting a Stealth Interceptor to start replacing the bulge of J7 variants, while this looks far more offensive and probably primarily targeted against Taiwan's Air Defences.

SDF pointed me in the direction of some Bill Sweetman Articles on Aus Air Power and so I am happy to post the links here

China's Stealth Striker

J-20 - Denial Is Not An Option

 

[NICO]

I agree that some of the hysteria and vitriol between pro-F35 and anti F35 on some other blogs is quite disturbing considering we have only a few very fuzzy pictures. We know nothing really of the Chinese requirements and specs, engines, dimensions,avionics,etc... It will take probably most of the next decade before we get some answers.

I find interesting to ponder why the Chinese Govt is allowing the disclosure to come out in this fashion. I have been to China a few times, face and all that good stuff is very important to Chinese, this seems a bit strange way to go about it. General good state of finish and paint job not yellow primer has me wondering if this is really the first prototype or if the first flight is really being attempted here.

 

[moahunter]

^^if it is true, it is smart though. Why not go for longer range rather than greater maneuverability? With beyond visual range weapons, and a good AESA radar (plenty of room for it on that airframe), it will outclass most 4g aircraft. This also could be an interesting selling point to other nations versus the PAK-FA.

 

[Blitzo]

I think someone a few pages back wanted Russian confirmation of this plane.

well here it is, and it's as biased and full of it as I expected:


The future of China's fifth-generation stealth fighter | Features & Opinion | RIA Novosti

Both experts and amateurs who have studied the blurred photos of an unfamiliar fighter jet on a runway in China (China Defense Blog: Chinese Stealth in Plain Sight: The Curious Emergence of the J-14 Fighter) have concluded that Beijing has started testing its fifth-generation stealth fighter.

The J-20 prototype is expected to rival the U.S. F-22 and the Russian T-50 fighters. But is China ready to start mass-producing the aircraft? How good is the prototype?

Experts call it a combination of the Russian and U.S. fifth-generation fighters, but that greatly simplifies matters. In the last 20 years, China has been working closely with Russia to develop a modern fighter jet. But the J-20 is not simply a copy of a Russian design. Rather China has tried to build a completely new aircraft based on the technology and knowledge it has gained during its years of cooperation with Russia.

The future of the new Chinese fighter will depend on several factors.

Engine

It is not clear what kind of engine the plane will have. Some say it will use the prospective Chinese-made WS-15 engine with a maximum thrust exceeding 18,000 kg, but the engine is still in the pipeline.

China has been unable to reproduce Russia's highly efficient high-temperature turbofan AL-31F engine, designed in the early 1980s and currently mounted on the Su-27 fighter and its modifications. The engines for Sukhoi planes manufactured in China are made in Russia and then assembled and adjusted in China.

The AL-31F engine is also mounted on China's J-10 fighter planes. The engine's Chinese analogue, the WS-10, is less efficient than the Russian prototype.

Materials

A fifth-generation stealth fighter must be able to evade radar, and so it must be made from modern composite materials. However, China does not produce such materials in commercial amounts, and experts doubt that it can develop and produce them for its Air Force.

Electronics

Electronic equipment, primarily radar, in China stands at approximately the same level as its engines. Chinese designs fall short of the capabilities of their Russian, European and American counterparts. Although China has been gradually narrowing the gap, it still has to import modern electronic equipment for its aircraft.

The best aircraft radar systems are currently made for Russia's Su-30MKK fighters, and China will most likely copy this design. It is not clear how much it will differ in terms of specifications from next-generation Russian or American radar systems.

Weapons

The guided weapons used in the Chinese Air Force were mostly copied from U.S., Israeli and Russian prototypes made in the 1960s through 1980s. China will have to spend a great deal of time and effort to develop its own weapons, even if it borrows elements of prototypes bought from other countries. But foreign producers are becoming increasingly wary of sharing their next-generation technology with China.

Conclusions

Since the 1970s, China has consistently lagged 15 to 20 years behind the world leaders in aircraft manufacturing. This was true of their third- and fourth-generation aircraft, and this appears to be the case with its fifth-generation fighter plane.

The J-20 fighter was produced nearly 20 year after the U.S. YF-22 (the prototype of the mass-produced F-22A), 17 years after the Russian MiG-1.44 (MiG-MFI, or Multifunctional Frontline Fighter), and 14 after Russia's S.37 (Su-47).

If the J-20 is accepted as the prototype for a new series, China will be able to produce a fifth-generation fighter plane within 10 years. If not, it will begin batch production no sooner than 15 or 20 years from now.

No one knows for sure what will happen, but it's certainly not too early to make predictions about the future of the new plane.

Given its traditional policy of aircraft manufacturing, China will most likely create a functional analogue of foreign-made 5G planes that will cost 50% to 80% less than Russian and U.S. models. China will most likely sell the plane in Central Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia, as well as to the richest African countries.

The export models of the J-20 and the planes of that series made for the Chinese Air Force will have foreign, including Russian, equipment and weapons. Moreover, in the next 20 to 30 years China will have to continue to import modern aircraft technology. Despite the strides made by China's aircraft designers in the last 20 years, China has only slightly narrowed the technological gap dividing it from the global leaders.

The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

I love how they have their superiority complex so visible in this article when there hasn't been a major military import from Russia in years...
Somebody's feeling a little threatened.

 

[Feanor]

I'm seeing a hybrid of 3 different VLO technology sets on this tarmac platform, they are NOT sympathetic. That raises alarm bells for me that this is not the real deal in a number of areas. You can put lipstick on a pig and its still a pig

Could you elaborate on this part here? In laymen's (idiot-proof if you could) terms.

I love how they have their superiority complex so visible in this article when there hasn't been a major military import from Russia in years...
Somebody's feeling a little threatened.

Care to elaborate on two parts in particular? The claims on the engine and radar... do you disagree?

 

[King Comm]

I must certainly do not claim any Defence Engineering knowledge, but I have been surprised by the size of this J20. I had been expecting a Stealth Interceptor to start replacing the bulge of J7 variants, while this looks far more offensive and probably primarily targeted against Taiwan's Air Defences.

SDF pointed me in the direction of some Bill Sweetman Articles on Aus Air Power and so I am happy to post the links here

China's Stealth Striker

J-20 - Denial Is Not An Option

Maybe it's not that big, just long, the small, back swept vertical stabilisers and the closeness fo the two engines suggest serious attempts to conform to the area rule, along with the inherent low drag of the highly low aspect ratio delta wing, the low super-sonic trim drag of an unstable delta canard layout, the Chinese might be trying to build the least draggy of all the 5th gen fighters, probably to achieve supercruise with less powerful engines.

In terms of manoeuvrability, unless the Chinese are absolutely out of their minds, the delta canard design will be unstable in the pitch axis, and the small vertical stabilisers means instability in the yaw axis, and the ventral fins may simply be a safety measure for the initial flight testing.

 

[Blitzo]

Care to elaborate on two parts in particular? The claims on the engine and radar... do you disagree?

I'll be the first to admit Chinese engines are not as good as they should be, but I don't know where they got the idea that the WS-10 was less efficient than the Al-31.

Also they talk about "reproducing" it -- since when did China ever want to copy the Al-31 (I know they wanted to manufacture it themselves but that's a ToT and not what the article is suggesting), unless they're implying the WS-10 is a copy.

In terms of the radar,... the article states China will want to copy the Su-30MKK's radar for the J-20. Meanwhile there have been reports the AESA for the J-20 is "ready" (no idea what it means, and I can't find the exact post. But it's somewhere in the "new generation fighter" thread on SDF, posted by 70092). It's also nearly fully confirmed the J-10B will be using AESA as well.

In terms of electronics, China is far more ahead than they are in engines. And I don't know what "modern electronic equipment" the article refers to either -- sure there would be the odd component they can't source indigenously but for the last few years there hasn't been any major purchases of radar or other avionics.


Here's an article on the Chinese electronics industry which almsot completely goes against what the article states: International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Report from the 2010 Chinese Defense Electronics Exhibition (CIDEX): Growing Industry – Advancing Technology