Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread

[MiG-23MLD]

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.

In my personal opinion, the J-20 has small dorsal fins and ventral strakes because the reduction of the dorsal fin is ineffective.

Studies done using thrust vectoring shows that thrust vectoring can be used to control the air vehicle in yaw and give lateral stability, thus allowing for a reduction in vertical fin size.
the T-50 uses thrust vectoring as a lateral control device.

The Chinese were trying to reduce the fin size but without much sucess at least in this model because either it has no thrust vectoring so it needs extra fin area and the ventral fins are used to stabilize the J-20 laterally.

Now all wings highly pitched are unstable because they stall; by using LERXes or Canards they delay the burst of the wing vortices allowing for some histeresis, on a fighter like the Su-27 this allows for the Cobra.
But here is not the whole story, the forebody also creates vortices that interact with the wing, canard o LERXs, this can generate yaw unstabilities.
The forebody Chines on the F-22 does stabilize it in yaw at high AoA, and it is the same for the T-50 and J-20, their chines interact with their other vortices.
The LEVCON on the T-50 must control the aircraft better than the canards on the J-20 since it does not have any ventral fins..

Many jets need ventral fins because of insufficient dorsal fin area, in example the MiG-25, F-16 or the MiG-23,
Some aircraft have enough rudder and keel area to control the fighter with just a single fin, in example the Rafale, LCA or the Eurofighter.

Vortices and vortex burst can induce buffeting and lateral unstabilities,
The J-20 has very likely insufficient dorsal fin area, thus it needs ventral fins.
On the F-22 is clear the americans saw the F-22 needed large dorsal vertical fins, so the F-22 does not need the x fighter appearance of the J-20 with its ventral and dorsal fins.

If you have read the history of the Su-27 you will know that the integral layout with podded engines makes for the least drag, by creating smaller semi-independent elements with lower drag than a fighter with conventional configuration like the F-15 or F-14 where the intakes and forebody are blended into a single unit tha does create higher total drag.

This tell easily the T-50 is very likely the one with least drag of the fifth generation fighters.

 

[F-35]

More J-20 photos

There is one thing that's for sure, J-20 is big and its stablizers are very unique.


See its size comparing with F-22 and T-50

http--://bbs.wforum.com/wmf/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=98486]

J-20 New picture released just couple of hours ago

http--://bbs.wforum.com/wmf/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=98515

remove the dashlines, you can see the pics

 

[MiG-23MLD]

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



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.

it is not superiority complex, it is simple logic, having the prototype means does not mean automatically they will put it into production right away, the F-22 flew in 1990 and it took 15 years to enter into operational service, the F-35 is the same, it flew in the early 2000s and it will enter operational service in 2016.
The US is a large economy.
The Russians know their jet needs Indian Money 250 billion dollars and 7-10 years to enter as a mature product, it will enter operation service in 2015 but without all the capacities intended and only by 2020 will be a mature product,
For China is the same, consider they just taxied a prototype while Russia flew the MiG-1.44 and S-37 and the US the YF-23 and YF-22.

Nowadays Sukhoi and Airbus to put some examples know China will become a competitor and they know the only way to stay ahead is with better technology and they still are powers in sales, AIrbus is the number one airliner maker and Russia the 2 largest weapons exporter, in fact they just inked a contract for 250 billion dollars for the PAK FA.

 

[Blitzo]

it is not superiority complex, it is simple logic, having the prototype means does not mean automatically they will put it into production right away, the F-22 flew in 1990 and it took 15 years to enter into operational service, the F-35 is the same, it flew in the early 2000s and it will enter operational service in 2016.
The US is a large economy.
The Russians know their jet needs Indian Money 250 billion dollars and 7-10 years to enter as a mature product, it will enter operation service in 2015 but without all the capacities intended and only by 2020 will be a mature product,
For China is the same, consider they just taxied a prototype while Russia flew the MiG-1.44 and S-37 and the US the YF-23 and YF-22.

Nowadays Sukhoi and Airbus to put some examples know China will become a competitor and they know the only way to stay ahead is with better technology and they still are powers in sales, AIrbus is the number one airliner maker and Russia the 2 largest weapons exporter, in fact they just inked a contract for 250 billion dollars for the PAK FA.

I never said the J-20 will be put into production right away (and I don't think the article was implying the Chinese believed that either), but it doesn't mean it will take the length of time it took for the YF-22 to turn into the F-22 and then go into production either. Don't forget about the all important politics involved in both the ATF and JSF projects too.

And the article also says "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)."

But they lack the part where they say "The J-20 fighter was produced nearly one year after the Russian T-50". It's as if they think the J-20 is comparable to the Mig 1.44 and Su-47.

Maybe it isn't a superiority complex but it's definitely unashamed bias.

 

[MiG-23MLD]

I never said the J-20 will be put into production right away (and I don't think the article was implying the Chinese believed that either), but it doesn't mean it will take the length of time it took for the YF-22 to turn into the F-22 and then go into production either. Don't forget about the all important politics involved in both the ATF and JSF projects too.

And the article also says "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)."

But they lack the part where they say "The J-20 fighter was produced nearly one year after the Russian T-50". It's as if they think the J-20 is comparable to the Mig 1.44 and Su-47.

Maybe it isn't a superiority complex but it's definitely unashamed bias.

They maybe are trying to imply that th aircraft will need to be debugged, honed, improved after a long process of redeveloping, for example it is not likely it already is flying with thrust vectoring, i do not think there is at this moment a chinese fighter with thrust vectoring nozzles.
Russia flew since the late 1980s a Su-27 modified with a flat nozzle with thrust vectoring, later it flew the Su-27M and Su-37, much later, Sukhoi built the Su-30MKI for India and the MiG-29OVT.

Considering this means they will need several years to fly their own engine with thrust vectoring.
In 2000 when the MiG-1.44 flew it carried AL-41s.
So the current 117 engine is the result of almost 20 years of experience flying engines with thrust vectoring and here remember Russia built the base fot the engine of the F-35 and Yak-141.

So if China wants to build let us say the engine it will requiere 7-10 years as a minimun 15 to produce it without any problem
.
Radar technology and avionics in China must de in a descent state, however here flying the aircraft will require test to write the flight control programs.
Having supercomputers does not mean you still do not need flight testing or the computer will do the thinking, enginners need to understand the data to write the programs and this means you still need tests and thinking and for that experience matters.

 

[King Comm]

In my personal opinion, the J-20 has small dorsal fins and ventral strakes because the reduction of the dorsal fin is ineffective.

Studies done using thrust vectoring shows that thrust vectoring can be used to control the air vehicle in yaw and give lateral stability, thus allowing for a reduction in vertical fin size.
the T-50 uses thrust vectoring as a lateral control device.

The Chinese were trying to reduce the fin size but without much sucess at least in this model because either it has no thrust vectoring so it needs extra fin area and the ventral fins are used to stabilize the J-20 laterally.

Now all wings highly pitched are unstable because they stall; by using LERXes or Canards they delay the burst of the wing vortices allowing for some histeresis, on a fighter like the Su-27 this allows for the Cobra.
But here is not the whole story, the forebody also creates vortices that interact with the wing, canard o LERXs, this can generate yaw unstabilities.
The forebody Chines on the F-22 does stabilize it in yaw at high AoA, and it is the same for the T-50 and J-20, their chines interact with their other vortices.
The LEVCON on the T-50 must control the aircraft better than the canards on the J-20 since it does not have any ventral fins

A high degree of instability is the desirable, the ventral fins are most likely just a safety measure for the inital flight testing and will be eliminated in the final design. The pitch and yaw of the aircraft can be maintained by the automatic flight control, eliminating the need for any stability inherent to the airframe. Note that the rudders are very far apart, and slants outwards, most likely to move them out of the wake of the fuselage and interact with the vortices from the canards and the LERX to maintain their effectiveness at high AoA.

If you have read the history of the Su-27 you will know that the integral layout with podded engines makes for the least drag, by creating smaller semi-independent elements with lower drag than a fighter with conventional configuration like the F-15 or F-14 where the intakes and forebody are blended into a single unit tha does create higher total drag.

This tell easily the T-50 is very likely the one with least drag of the fifth generation fighters

That's only in the subsonic regime, in the transonic and supersonic regime, wide engine spacing leads to large cross-sectional area of the aft-fuselage, and does not conform to the area rule.

 

[Feanor]

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.

If China couldn't get ToT, and had the opportunity and capability to copy the engine effectively, you think they wouldn't?

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.

The J-10 currently uses a mechanically scanned array, yes? I.e. China doesn't have indigenous PESA fighter radars at this time. Yet they will make the jump to flying first-gen AESA in production aircraft in a few years? The US took much longer to do this. Russia's first flight test of AESA will begin next year. Serial production is a good 3-5 years away (on the MiG-35, and pre-production PAK-FA batch). I'm not sure what the status of CAESAR is at this time, but there is also a considerable time gap between when first PESA radars are designed and when first AESA is ready for serialized production. Somehow I don't see AESA all that soon.

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.

Electro-optical systems similar in principle to the EO-DAS, or OLS on the MiG-35?

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

Contains very little relevant to modern fighter jet design. I'm familiar with the abysmal situation in most of the Russian defence industry. You might want to consider that the average age of engineers at OAO Sukhoi Construction Bureau is 35-40 years old. (in other words there are two generations, the older 45-55 generation, and a new younger 20-30 generation)

 

[BK101]

I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced....I'm just a firm believer in an order of technology development and it seems that all other countries take certain steps to develop their weapons. Also, I look at defense budgets and at the rate of the U.S., they should have a whole squadron of unmanned stealth fighters that can pull 12 G's.
If China has stealth fighters with their budget, I can only imagine what the U.S. has...

 

[Blitzo]

If China couldn't get ToT, and had the opportunity and capability to copy the engine effectively, you think they wouldn't?

Sure, if they could get it to work as reliably as the current Al-31s without needing to go through all the testing and certification.
The complexity of copying a whole engine and the desire to indigenize defence production... it would've worked against the desire to copy it.

Also I think they weren't very happy with the lifespan of the Russian engine -- but seeing as it was the only reliable option they had they took it. Why copy an engine which may take as long as developing your own, when it doesn't fully fill your specifications.

The J-10 currently uses a mechanically scanned array, yes? I.e. China doesn't have indigenous PESA fighter radars at this time. Yet they will make the jump to flying first-gen AESA in production aircraft in a few years? The US took much longer to do this. Russia's first flight test of AESA will begin next year. Serial production is a good 3-5 years away (on the MiG-35, and pre-production PAK-FA batch). I'm not sure what the status of CAESAR is at this time, but there is also a considerable time gap between when first PESA radars are designed and when first AESA is ready for serialized production. Somehow I don't see AESA all that soon.

I'm not sure whether current J-10s use mechanically scanned arrays or not, to be honest. The previous universally accepted idea was that it was mechanically scanned but there was a CCTV report a while ago which said the J-10 used ESA radar (not sure whether PESA or AESA though).
Regardless, it's not like China doesn't have experience with designing and manufacturing AESA modules -- KJ-2000, KJ-200, 052C's PAR and one of the radars for the land based HQ-9. And they're all in service, for quite a few years now. Sure there are differences between designing and manufacturing an AWACS class AESA/land/naval based AESA to a fighter based ones but they the fact remains that they aren't new to the game.

I can't see China wanting to develop and put in service PESA first, instead of AESA -- it's like building an F-117 class stealth aircraft instead of leaping to F-22 class stealth...

Electro-optical systems similar in principle to the EO-DAS, or OLS on the MiG-35?

Err, I wrote electronics, not electro-optical systems I think. Don't know what the question means exactly.

(Btw, I'd expect the J-20 to have some form of 360 degree detection system. It probably won't be as advanced as DAS but it should be there. They've demonstrated the ability to manufacture their own electro optic systems for a while now. I wonder if the large nose of the aircraft could fit some sort of side looking AESA)

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

If the chinese can't get the engine right, that will be a serious limiter on the numbers.

J-10s are produced to something like 30 production units a year based on engine procurement. I have my doubts if the J-20 even if entering production will exceed those numbers if the engine remains foreign.

I think that a quantitative PLAAF match to projected F-35 numbers will be a serious issue.

Having said that, it has multiple implications.

(a) Its going to force USAF planners to relook at the sufficiency of F-22s being used as a sectoral air dominance fighter ie more F-22s or a new F-22C.
(b) Its going to reinvigorate US F-35 budget.
(c) Its going to make air forces like those of the UK look increasingly obsolete with its main fighter force being non-stealth. It might force the countries particularly Europe to focus on a next gen stealth as well or cede the next gen fighter procurement to US.
(d) Its going to influence current & future aircraft procurement of neighboring countries towards the F-35 or other indigeneous stealth programs eg India.

In some aspects, the Koreans might relook at the sufficiency of a F-15SE. The Japs will certainly go F-35. South East Asia cannot afford not to go stealthy when India and China is trending that way (and Australia already has firmly set its sights on the F-35). Most will not wait until China adopts a stealth fighter before adopting stealth (due to large chinese budget, operating a stealth a/c earlier may provide tactical advantages). India might even be influenced to hedge its bets with some F-35s as well.

What could be interesting if US decides to sell F-35s to Vietnam. That would be a major diplomatic coup. There could be a concerted allied push for F-22 export release.

The unlikely winner of this could ironically be Lockheed Martin with an unexpected marketing boost (and more so if F-22 gets exported and even if the J-XX turns out to be a fake stealth a/c).

The key factor is going to be Taiwan. F-35Bs operating from off-base runways is the best solution to maintain air defence even in the face of J-XXs. The pull out by UK will make it very welcome esp to USMC. The question is whether the next president will have the guts to sell. Since the next prez is highly likely going to be a republican (anyone other than Palin will probably win against Obama), that could be a likely scenario.

There could be some marketing changes for the F-35. Its been marketed as a day 3 non-stealth attack a/c due to the use of external pylons. It could now be day 14 or later before USAF obtains air dominance against a similar stealth adversary. Yet ironically, the F-35 is still the best aircraft to survive in a stealth combat environment since any 3rd gen a/c is likely going to be far less survivable.

 

[Blitzo]

If the chinese can't get the engine right, that will be a serious limiter on the numbers.

J-10s are produced to something like 30 production units a year based on engine procurement. I have my doubts if the J-20 even if entering production will exceed those numbers if the engine remains foreign.

I think that a quantitative PLAAF match to projected F-35 numbers will be a serious issue.

The J-20 probably won't be built in excess of ~300 so there's no need to worry about the quantity of J-20 approaching F-35 at least.

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

Here's a bit of a compilation (can't attach file, too damn big):

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4377/j20montage1.jpg


EDIT:
(But of course, all of those pictures are photoshops by compiling multiple pictures of the F-22, F-117, Su-47 together. The blurriness is just hiding the merging and PS of the planes on the background. Until I see Hu JinTao and Barack Obama standing next to the plane I still say it's a PS. )

 

[Feanor]

I'm not sure whether current J-10s use mechanically scanned arrays or not, to be honest. The previous universally accepted idea was that it was mechanically scanned but there was a CCTV report a while ago which said the J-10 used ESA radar (not sure whether PESA or AESA though).
Regardless, it's not like China doesn't have experience with designing and manufacturing AESA modules -- KJ-2000, KJ-200, 052C's PAR and one of the radars for the land based HQ-9. And they're all in service, for quite a few years now. Sure there are differences between designing and manufacturing an AWACS class AESA/land/naval based AESA to a fighter based ones but they the fact remains that they aren't new to the game.

I can't see China wanting to develop and put in service PESA first, instead of AESA -- it's like building an F-117 class stealth aircraft instead of leaping to F-22 class stealth...

I don't see anyone else being able to jump the gap so quickly. And we're talking about many nations with a relatively long history of fighter jet development. I see no reason to think the Chinese can do it, and stand by that until we have decisive proof otherwise.

Err, I wrote electronics, not electro-optical systems I think. Don't know what the question means exactly.

I don't know what it meant, I was guessing.

(Btw, I'd expect the J-20 to have some form of 360 degree detection system. It probably won't be as advanced as DAS but it should be there. They've demonstrated the ability to manufacture their own electro optic systems for a while now. I wonder if the large nose of the aircraft could fit some sort of side looking AESA)

What EO systems do current Chinese fighters carry?

 

[Blitzo]

I don't see anyone else being able to jump the gap so quickly. And we're talking about many nations with a relatively long history of fighter jet development. I see no reason to think the Chinese can do it, and stand by that until we have decisive proof otherwise.

Fair enough.
Keep in mind people were saying similar things about China jumping the gap in regards to stealth shaping and technology a few years back, yet here we are...

What EO systems do current Chinese fighters carry?

J-11B carries a forward IRST and a rear facing UV band MAWS.
I'm not sure if the IRST is a copy directly from the original Flankers' -- but I think anyone who thinks the PLAAF will replicate 80's/90's technology without adding their own upgrades and features is

JF-17 also carries a rear facing MAWS, not sure if it's the same as the J-11B's though, as does the J-10B which also has a J-11B style IRST (again, not sure if it's the same one present on the latter).


Nothing as comprehensive as the OLS on Mig-35 or the F-35's DAS but I think the fundamentals are there.

 

[Feanor]

Fair enough.
Keep in mind people were saying similar things about China jumping the gap in regards to stealth shaping and technology a few years back, yet here we are...

Or not. Until we get something more definitive, I'm reserving judgement as to how LO the aircraft is.

J-11B carries a forward IRST and a rear facing UV band MAWS.
I'm not sure if the IRST is a copy directly from the original Flankers' -- but I think anyone who thinks the PLAAF will replicate 80's/90's technology without adding their own upgrades and features is

JF-17 also carries a rear facing MAWS, not sure if it's the same as the J-11B's though, as does the J-10B which also has a J-11B style IRST (again, not sure if it's the same one present on the latter).


Nothing as comprehensive as the OLS on Mig-35 or the F-35's DAS but I think the fundamentals are there.

In other words, it's inferior to a late 4th gen from MiG (who these days is in a pretty big sh*thole). But in a few years it'll be a 5th gen.

Not to knock MiG, but until we see something a little more impressive then what China has demonstrated so far, and until we see it in serial production, talking about a Chinese 5th generation aircraft is premature.

 

[Blitzo]

Or not. Until we get something more definitive, I'm reserving judgement as to how LO the aircraft is.

Each to his own I suppose.

In other words, it's inferior to a late 4th gen from MiG (who these days is in a pretty big sh*thole). But in a few years it'll be a 5th gen.

Do MikoyanGregovitch make the avionics of their planes? If not then that doesn't mean their suppliers are sh*tholes and doesn't reflect on the electro optics of the aircraft you asked for, and certainly, definitely not the overall performance of the aircraft either.

Not to knock MiG, but until we see something a little more impressive then what China has demonstrated so far, and until we see it in serial production, talking about a Chinese 5th generation aircraft is premature.

Don't you mean not to knock Chengdu?
And what, in your opinion would be classified as a little more impressive?:frosty

I suppose it should also be a bit premature to talk about a Russian 5th generation aircraft as well seeing as it isn't in serial production and Sukhoi hasn't generated anything more impressive than what we've seen so far... Or is it good to talk about a Chinese 5th gen in a years time?


I understand defencetalk is a very professional forum for defence related topics, and I think the emergence of a Chinese 5th generation fighter aircraft is quite related -- but if talking about it means we have to speculate does that mean it shouldn't be done at all (and with the consequence of losing large potential volumes of discussion)?

 

[Feanor]

Do MikoyanGregovitch make the avionics of their planes? If not then that doesn't mean their suppliers are sh*tholes and doesn't reflect on the electro optics of the aircraft you asked for, and certainly, definitely not the overall performance of the aircraft either.



Don't you mean not to knock Chengdu?

Note how those two things are related?

And what, in your opinion would be classified as a little more impressive?:frosty

The OLS on the MiG-35 would be a little more impressive then what China currently flies...

I suppose it should also be a bit premature to talk about a Russian 5th generation aircraft as well seeing as it isn't in serial production and Sukhoi hasn't generated anything more impressive than what we've seen so far... Or is it good to talk about a Chinese 5th gen in a years time?

In case you haven't noticed claims of PAK-FA performance are indeed widely questioned, especially within the context of not some magical future VVS, but the VVS that realistically exists today. Of course we have proven and very mature PESA radar development, serial production, export, and domestic employment. We also have sophisticated OLS developed both for domestic and export aircraft. We have well established and long term engine development (including export of rather dated designs to China, to equip the J-10).

But we rightly question whether the PAK-FA is/will be a 5th gen. aircraft in the same way that the F-22 and F-35 are.

In the case of the J-20 the doubts (my doubts I should say) run much deeper.

I understand defencetalk is a very professional forum for defence related topics, and I think the emergence of a Chinese 5th generation fighter aircraft is quite related -- but if talking about it means we have to speculate does that mean it shouldn't be done at all (and with the consequence of losing large potential volumes of discussion)?

The emergence of a 5th generation Chinese aircraft is quite related, I'm just not sure this is it.

EDIT: To sum it up all we currently have a a few pictures. Until we have some real information on the plane, the only thing we can use to estimate it's capabilities is the currently existing PLAAF assets + whatever level of improvement seems realistic given what currently exists.

 

[Blitzo]

Note how those two things are related?

Actually I don't, please spell it out for me.

The OLS on the MiG-35 would be a little more impressive then what China currently flies...

I see... So if China made an OLS class electro optic device then we can start talking about a Chinese 5th gen?

In case you haven't noticed claims of PAK-FA performance are indeed widely questioned, especially within the context of not some magical future VVS, but the VVS that realistically exists today. Of course we have proven and very mature PESA radar development, serial production, export, and domestic employment. We also have sophisticated OLS developed both for domestic and export aircraft. We have well established and long term engine development (including export of rather dated designs to China, to equip the J-10).

But we rightly question whether the PAK-FA is/will be a 5th gen. aircraft in the same way that the F-22 and F-35 are.

In the case of the J-20 the doubts (my doubts I should say) run much deeper.

Questioning if the PAK FA is 5th gen? Oh boy...

The emergence of a 5th generation Chinese aircraft is quite related, I'm just not sure this is it.

Alright then, we'll pass and wait for the next one.
-head desk-

EDIT: To sum it up all we currently have a a few pictures. Until we have some real information on the plane, the only thing we can use to estimate it's capabilities is the currently existing PLAAF assets + whatever level of improvement seems realistic given what currently exists.

We'll be left hanging for at least a decade or two then. It's been about that long since the J-10 first flew and we only recently got the very basic specs. We don't even know what kind of radar it uses.

 

[King Comm]

I don't see anyone else being able to jump the gap so quickly. And we're talking about many nations with a relatively long history of fighter jet development. I see no reason to think the Chinese can do it, and stand by that until we have decisive proof otherwise.

Other countries' pattern of developing PESA before AESA was due to very specific historical circumstances: in the 70's, traveling-wave tube technology has been in development since WWII and was already very mature, while MMIC was only invented in 1975, PESA was the only option at the time.

For the Chinese, things are a bit different, they still have difficulties designing and producing traveling wave tubes, while millions of MMICs are produced each year for the telecommunication industry. Basically, AESA is the easier option.

 

[dingyibvs]

I think too many people are making the mistake of using the U.S. and/or Russian development model and time scale to measure the Chinese progress. China is in catch-up mode, and that means they probably won't spend nearly as much time developing the same technologies that the Americans and/or the Russians did in innovating them. If they always had to take the same amount of time to develop every system then the technology gap between them and the Americans/Russians would be the same today as it was in 1990. We KNOW that it's simply not true, so that has to mean that they're doing things faster.

Sometimes people focus too narrowly, and it's better to sometimes take a step back and look at the big picture. For example, in the grand scheme of things, that China doesn't have an operational PESA radar on its fighter jets is a minor thing. They've put a PESA radar on the JL-15 already(a friggin LIFT!!), so I doubt that it's a problem for them. They'll run into snags here and there, such as with the WS-10 engine, but they'll catch up in time. You don't need any technical knowledge to tell that.

 

[Hoffy]

I think too many people are making the mistake of using the U.S. and/or Russian development model and time scale to measure the Chinese progress. China is in catch-up mode, and that means they probably won't spend nearly as much time developing the same technologies that the Americans and/or the Russians did in innovating them. If they always had to take the same amount of time to develop every system then the technology gap between them and the Americans/Russians would be the same today as it was in 1990. We KNOW that it's simply not true, so that has to mean that they're doing things faster.

Sometimes people focus too narrowly, and it's better to sometimes take a step back and look at the big picture. For example, in the grand scheme of things, that China doesn't have an operational PESA radar on its fighter jets is a minor thing. They've put a PESA radar on the JL-15 already(a friggin LIFT!!), so I doubt that it's a problem for them. They'll run into snags here and there, such as with the WS-10 engine, but they'll catch up in time. You don't need any technical knowledge to tell that.

Of course the Chinese will catch up.
We tend to take a superior view of things in the West in relation to the future potential military might of the Chinese.
This is a huge mistake. I notice a number of posts on this site that tend to dismiss the level of technological advancement of the Chinese or at least the massive amounts of money & work that are currently being directed into the Chinese military ( and the Russians as well for that matter). This is an understandable human reaction to any suggestion that the status quo might be significantly altered in the near future ( next 20 + years).
I am very uncomfortable with the level of uncertainty that this creates as well.
But surely we should be smarter than that.

BTW , the J-XX is still an unknown quantity so the speculation levels here will continue to be high.