Wasn't that last week? Shirley there aren't any crazies left in the wood?
Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread
Finally a top view to see the plane's RAS design. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the chinese went to great length as to create a very good stealth design compared to the russians as what some ppl say, shouldnt they have paid more attention on its wing- canard design. Its doesnt look like they paid attention on the wings trailing edges as well as the canard's as well.
It looks like a "just there" kinda design, which lacks sophistication in its design to conform to the stealth characteristics.? I think its primarily optimized for just frontal aspect stealth, and maybe its because the designers designed its for a particular role
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/15/c6c00b13-8cab-4148-9fb4-96e8dfa0424a.Full.jpg
It looks like a "just there" kinda design, which lacks sophistication in its design to conform to the stealth characteristics.? I think its primarily optimized for just frontal aspect stealth, and maybe its because the designers designed its for a particular role
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/15/c6c00b13-8cab-4148-9fb4-96e8dfa0424a.Full.jpg
The trailing edges are fine for stealth. The left canard's trailing edge is parallel to the right wing's, and the right canard's parallel to left wing's.
Tons of great pics from this maiden flight:
J-20 Black Eagle - Part 3 - Page 7 - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
It turns out the engine with white nozzle and certain stealth features for J-20 is indigenous and completely new to the outside, neither the AL-31 series nor WS-10A.
J-20 Black Eagle - Part 3 - Page 7 - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
It turns out the engine with white nozzle and certain stealth features for J-20 is indigenous and completely new to the outside, neither the AL-31 series nor WS-10A.
It’s not as simple as just having planforms align but in which direction they point. These surfaces will create a RCS return spike very close to the centre line. The importance of having a 40-50 degree spike from centreline has everthing to do with geometric relationships from a moving target. To spike at 5-10 degrees from the boresight makes the aircraft very easy to detect in anything other than a tactical head to head engagement.
I might have misunderstood you. However, are you saying the trailing edges will create spikes 5 to 10 degrees from bore sight when the enemy aircraft is head-on? How?
If you are talking about from aft, then I agree with you.
However, I also think J-20 was designed as a defensive fighter, and it will fly close to home so it can assume its back is friendly sky. Its stealth is designed to evade AWACS and enemy fighters in its front 180 degrees (but could be somewhat above or below).
On the other hand, F-22 was designed as offensive fighter. Its role is deep inside enemy territory. It must evade Russian (and Chinese) ground radar network. That's why F-22's underbody is much stealthier than J-20. It is determined by its role.
Take its vertical fins. It is a horrible choice against ground based radar. However, against AWACS, it hides the engine from side view.
Radar, the spherical world and geometric relationships don’t work that way.
One day we need one of you guys to brief us exactly on how VLO works through airframe shaping, preferably with reference and comparative examples to a or multiple designs.
Obviously reading wikipedia is not sufficient
Mod edit: This is something that the Mod Team has been working on off and on. When it is ready, it will be posted for members to read and to streamline discussion on LO topics, since a number of misconceptions will have been dealt with.
-Preceptor
Obviously reading wikipedia is not sufficient
Mod edit: This is something that the Mod Team has been working on off and on. When it is ready, it will be posted for members to read and to streamline discussion on LO topics, since a number of misconceptions will have been dealt with.
-Preceptor
Last edited by a moderator:
Couple of quick comments:
Still believe this is one of the strangest roll outs of all time, what are China's motivation's showing their newest fighter this way is just weird. Just to show up Gates during his visit? I don't think so, there has to be more than that.
I am more convinced than ever that this isn't the "real" first flight, just a hunch. There seems to be more "reports" of a second jet, don't know if it is just internet wishful thinking though.
Hard to see any ventral bays, maybe we can't see them, maybe this is really just a demonstrator so they weren't "built" in on first test article.
Read some comments on it would be nice to hear from what the Russian think of all this, we just keep hearing from USA's POV. Interesting to hear what India has to say. Found a report that India MoD has started working on preliminary report on J20.
Finally, what the hell is this thing called? I have heard so many different names emanating from Chinese post , at least the Chinese should tell us what the designation/name is to their own jet before DOD gives it some crappy name.
Still believe this is one of the strangest roll outs of all time, what are China's motivation's showing their newest fighter this way is just weird. Just to show up Gates during his visit? I don't think so, there has to be more than that.
I am more convinced than ever that this isn't the "real" first flight, just a hunch. There seems to be more "reports" of a second jet, don't know if it is just internet wishful thinking though.
Hard to see any ventral bays, maybe we can't see them, maybe this is really just a demonstrator so they weren't "built" in on first test article.
Read some comments on it would be nice to hear from what the Russian think of all this, we just keep hearing from USA's POV. Interesting to hear what India has to say. Found a report that India MoD has started working on preliminary report on J20.
Finally, what the hell is this thing called? I have heard so many different names emanating from Chinese post
, at least the Chinese should tell us what the designation/name is to their own jet before DOD gives it some crappy name. I've seen "Black Eagle" and "Firefang", although I suspect the latter is more of a nod to the movie "Firefox" (with a Chinese-sounding twist). It will be interesting to see whether the NATO reporting name or the Chinese name (either translated or actual) becomes the most popularly-referenced.Finally, what the hell is this thing called? I have heard so many different names emanating from Chinese post
Think of this from China's changing position in the world. It's beginning to develop international interests and assets which it will sooner or later need to defend, and it will need other countries to take it seriously in order to avoid costly military conflicts (for both sides). Allowing the leak of an advanced military platform a month before Hu and Obama meet is a non-aggressive way to tell other countries to take it seriously, and gives Hu an upper hand in security discussion that may come up in a diplomatically polite way.
LOL. The real reason is tied up in Chinese internal politics of the last ten years. As Hu moved China away from a confrontation policy against Taiwan he brought off the PLA leadership with funds for modernisation. This modernisation has also dovetailed nicely into the CCP's Chinese nationalism policy. I very much doubt this plane has been rushed into flight. Probably delayed more than anything to align with auspicious dates and the current round of US-PRC dialogue. It may be a CTD or it may be a new fighter to replace the J-8. It certainly isn't an upset to the balance of power or a great achievement.
He asked why this plane was rolled out the way it did, (ie leaks followed by an unannounced first flight day), not about why this project was started.
I do not think this plane in its entirety was planned over an auspicious set of dialogues either, but I'm pretty sure with the upcoming meeting if the first flight wasn't a few weeks ahead of this, it would have been a few weeks behind it, for diplomatic reasons.
Regardless of whether it's an upset to the balance of power or not, it makes China's ability to defend its regional interests easier and any potential US-China conflict harder for the US, both of which are things China would benefit from through a leak over keeping the development of the plane completely secret.
The meetings aren’t auspicious but the date stamp of the first flight was 11:11 AM, 11:1:2011… Sort of thing Chinese get off on.
Ahh something that enhances PRC mil power and dreceases US power IS an upset of the balance of power. This plane may be a lot better than the J-8-IIs it will replace but if their new adversary aircraft is far, far better then they have made no headway in the balance of power stakes. Compared to J-8 vs F-15/F-16/F-18 the J-10/J-20 vs F-22/F-35 line up will see China going backwards.
This plane was NOT secret until the plane spotters were allowed to take photos nor could it be kept secret. The US would be in possession of some very nice radar satellite imagery of this aircraft as soon as it was rolled from the hangar not to mention info by other means.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand what point you're trying to address? China's military arsenal has improved, while the US arsenal has stayed the same. A J-8 to a teen series comparison would be a 3rd generation to 4th generation comparison, but a J-20 to a F-22/F-35 comparison would be comparing two 5th generation platforms. Isn't that an improvement...?
Even if they could get a picture using satellites, it would be different from the photo and video leaks we've been getting which reveal a lot more information. Leaking advanced platforms the way China did maximizes deterrence potential because it minimizes the chance that other countries don't take it seriously, as opposed to a grainy satellite picture. Being able to show a working prototype with all the right bells and whistles gives you a solid way to show you're serious, as opposed to making empty claims? Besides, by leaking the way it did China wouldn't just be strengthening its hand against the US, but other countries as well?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Something which needs to be kept in mind, and part of the reason why DT does not particularly like or allow vs. comparisons, is that such comparisons really need to be done at a systems level in order for them to be relevant.
In this case, it would not just be comparing a US F-22/F-35 to a PRC J-20, but the entire US C5ISR with the PRC C3 or C4ISR depending on the sensor & comms footprint the PRC has. Additionally, with the J-20 prototype(s) having some features which seem to conflict with different mission sets (thus making it look like a CTD), it does make one question just how much of a "5th generation fighter" the J-20 will actually be. Particularly since a number of the features which are often considered '5th generation' like advanced sensors and comms to provide significantly greater SA than possible in earlier aircraft generations. Part of that improvement comes not only from advances in an individual fighter aircraft's avionics, but improvements in availably of and integration with offboard sensor platforms.
An F-22 or F-35 has/will have rather impressive harvester capabilities in its own right, but will also benefit from offboard systems like AEW, AWACS, ground, ship and space-based radar, EO and ESM systems. Additionally, the US has had the time and experience to develop doctrine to make appropriate use of such systems and support. Even were the J-20 (or PAK-FA for that matter) to have a comparable level of sensor fusion, without the system of sensors and comms, the aircraft will have nothing additional to integrate and relay to the pilot. And without the doctrine and training, additional information being relayed to the pilots would be either wasted or not put to as good a use as it could be.
-Cheers
I'm not making this comparison though. I was talking about why the J-20 was leaked the way it did.
Relatively speaking, things like AEW, AWACS, EO etc. are both much easier to produce and something that China is more advanced in than producing stealthy airframes and engines to power them. I think people tend to get caught up in relatively minute details when analyzing China, and usually the more professional a person is in the field under discussion the more he's prone to do so because he appreciates the complexity of each little thing. However, as always, I advocate taking a step back and looking at the big picture.
It's important to analyze China in the frame of intent and capability. For all the things you mentioned, do the Chinese appreciate their importance, and do they have the overall infrastructure to advance in those areas? Judging by their developments across the board(052Cs, KJ-2000s, etc.), it appears that they do indeed appreciate the importance of C4ISR, and therefore they should have the intent and thus the funding to advance in those areas. Secondly, judging by their capabilities in manufacturing, particularly in electronics, there is also significant reason to believe that they have the capability to take leaps ahead in those areas as well.
The argument is that the US is advancing in these areas faster then the Chinese.