Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread

[MiG-23MLD]

Basing issues, depth of mission, persistence, nominal fighting altitude, nominal, fighting attitude.

The presence and/or lack of refueling probe or port determines what kind of refuelers (if any) will be used. It impacts upon range and support issues, it starts to define bases of support, it starts to determine staging issues.

Thrust vectoring, RAM applique, skegs and placement might get others excited, but they are absolutely meaningless when conducting interim tactical analysis. Thats akin to focussing on blacked out windows when looking at a sports car. Nice too look at the obvious, but ultimately irrelevant in forming the assessment.

i agree up to some degree with you, in 2010, stealth ACAVs exist in Europe, North America and Russia, the J-20 by it self as an airframe is not the whole deal , you need to consider avionics radar and weaponry.
The J-20 by it self is not a new military concept, stealth UCAVs like the TARANIS are as advanced as the J-20 because without a pilot in the plane 12Gs or 15Gs are attainable and a great deal of drag eliminated without a bulged canopy.



But the airframe basicly tells you the main flight envelop and therefore what types of weapons it will use and role it has.
The J-20 still will be limited to 9Gs so it won`t go so far from 4th generation fighters in agility.
On the Taranis stealth is easier to attain, so its stealth is even more limited than the one achieved by the X-47 naval UCAV.

The Chinese chose the most limiting configuration a delta with canard, the X-32 eliminated the tailplane just to later reinvented.
UCAVs like the Taranis or X-47 dispense of many elements and simplify stealth.

The J-20 shows a fighter with J-10 performance with stealth added, so they needed a twin engined aircraft with probably decent range and agility, used as an interdictor and air superiority against 4th generation types and a very good fighter versus the F-22 and F-35.

Since the canard does not seem to have planforming it will bounce back more radar signals than the thrust vectoring capable F-22 that uses its nozzles to pitch and tailplanes to roll.
If the J-20 has thrust vectoring then the canards will need less deflection but the canard shape will be a drawback, the chinese did not use a template like the X-36 and this is probably because their engines are not ready so they need to get the most of agility from the conventional canard and delta wing.
The F-22 eliminated the canard need because the americans have simply better engines.
The use of a larger dorsal fin than the T-50`s and ventral fins shows probably their engine has limited thrust vectoring so the vertical tail still needs to be big and the vortices shed by the canard and forebody do affect up to some degree lateral stability.

this can imply as Novosti has said the Chinese will add russian engines until they can achieve a decent engine with thrust vectoring and supercruise

 

[Bonza]

I see -- so let's say PAK FA enters both Russian and Indian service, and then fast forward a decade:
Hypothetically, if the Indians (with more funding) can network their aircrafts better, and have better logistics and a larger variety of weapons, and just better general support while the Russians lag behind -- does that mean the IAF has a 5th gen aircraft while the Russians don't?

I think what Feanor's getting at is that there's a distinction between a 5th generation platform and a 5th generation capability - in the example you used above, I think it would indicate that the IAF were maintaining a true 5th generation capability, which involves more than just the capabilities of the platform itself, but the synergies between the platform and the wider system of which it is a part. So the capability is composed not only of the platform, but all the enabling points in the system that support the platform, and the additional capabilities the platform itself brings to the overall system.

At least, that's what I read into what he was saying, happy to stand corrected if I'm mistaken.

Even the term "5th generation" is somewhat loaded these days, as there's no real concrete definition of what it means and it gets thrown around a hell of a lot, but I guess for ease of communication it works.

 

[tphuang]

Well, looks like I go away for a week, they somehow allowed first sets of J-20 photos to be published. I for one am quite surprised by this. A little change of times when considering how long it took before the first J-10 pictures came out. I'm hoping this is a movement toward greater transparency for PLA. As for the aircraft itself, I'm going to wait for a few years. Until they resolve the powerplant issue, it will be a no show regardless of how advanced it might be. WS-10A is finally joining service in meaningful numbers. It will probably take a while before WS-15 does the same, even though it is said to be proceeding successfully.

Just to budge in on the entire AESA debate. I personally think that not only J-20, but J-10B will also be using AESA radar. What we can agree on is that J-10A and J-11B are using mechanically steered radar at the moment. So, the question is whether China can move to AESA this quickly. Here are some recent Russian and Ukrainian assessment from the recent CIDEX 2010.
International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Report from the 2010 Chinese Defense Electronics Exhibition (CIDEX): Growing Industry – Advancing Technology

Today the former students (the Chinese) have become the masters. Chinese industry now has the ability to produce components that the Russian electronics industry (after almost two decades of no investment by their government) is no longer capable of either designing or manufacturing. The initial failure rates on the production of transmit/receive (T/R) modules for the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars being designed for the Mikoyan MiG-35 and the Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA 5th-generation fighter, for example, were so high that it would have bankrupted any western firm involved in a similar programme.

Not surprisingly, this year’s CIDEX show saw groups of Russian specialists going through the halls and looking for components that they could source out of China to be utilised in Russian-designed weapon systems. Russian specialists will point out that they are now at a huge disadvantage to the Chinese in two very significant respects.

One is that the commitment by the central government in resources to the defence electronics sector is both sustained and serious. “They can take a field where there is nothing but flat land and wild grass,” said one Russian company representative, “and the next thing you know there is a full-blown factory or design centre there turning out a world-class product.”

China closer to First World standards in defense electronics - Washington Times

The communist regime's defense electronics prowess was on display at the recent China Defense Electronics Exposition (CIDEX) in Beijing from May 12 to 14.

"The type of components I am seeing in China are not readily available anywhere — except maybe in the U.S.," said a Ukrainian defense electronics specialist who attended the show.
..
Foreign participants — sellers and buyers — are aware of the PLA sponsorship. On the buying side, foreign delegations came from Russia and Ukraine looking at purchasing Chinese electronics and other components and systems for their own weapons applications.
,,,
"In many areas, Chinese [military] equipment is either equal to in capability or superior to that designed in Russia in the present day," said a Moscow-based defense analyst. "It is only a matter of time before they pass up Russia completely and achieve parity with U.S. and European weapon systems."

The question is whether or not China has transferred the success that it has had recently in the electronics industry to radar technology or other aircraft avionics. I would say that it has if we look at some of the things we are seeing on J-11B and J-10B. I don't think China is following the Russian path of going to PESA before AESA radar. I think it is going straight to AESA from mechanical scanned radar. They've had some experience with AESA radar from the KJ-2000/KJ-200 and 052C programs. In those cases, they went from nothing straight to AESA radar. It looks like the recent J-10B is designed for AESA radar. As usual, we will have to wait to confirm that. They seemed to be having greater transparency now, so we might get more details once J-10B join service. As usual, I'm just waiting patiently for further developments.

 

[F-35]

I don't know where to put this...

I don't know where to put this article...but I feel like I have to do this. I have some very disturbing news to share...

Europe is considering to lift China arms embargo....

Quote:

EU 'could end China arms embargo'

A European Union arms embargo clamped on China in 1989 following the Tiananmen Square crackdown could be lifted in early 2011, Brussels sources told Thursday's edition of France's Le Figaro daily.

The lifting of the embargo on all lethal weapons "could happen very quickly," a source close to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton told the paper.

It said that the embargo was considered a slap in the face for the world's second largest economic bloc as well as militarily ineffective by the EU as China increasingly builds its own weapons.

A confidential report presented to the last European Union summit that ended on December 17 described the embargo as "a major obstacle" to Europe-China security and foreign policy cooperation.

As a result "the EU should draw the practical conclusions and go ahead," the report said.

Europe was divided on the issue when it was discussed at a meeting of the EU's 27 foreign ministers in September, with some mooting the idea of a conditional lifting of the embargo.

Conditions included improved ties with Taiwan, an amnesty for arrests linked to the Tiananmen crackdown, and a calendar for the ratification of the convention on civil and political rights.

The Figaro said that the Netherlands, Britain and, to a lesser extent, Germany, had all lowered their opposition to lifting the embargo.

Chinese troops and tanks ended weeks of pro-democracy protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, killing hundreds if not thousands of demonstrators.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't know where to put this article...but I feel like I have to do this. I have some very disturbing news to share...

Europe is considering to lift China arms embargo....

Quote:

EU 'could end China arms embargo'

A European Union arms embargo clamped on China in 1989 following the Tiananmen Square crackdown could be lifted in early 2011, Brussels sources told Thursday's edition of France's Le Figaro daily.

The lifting of the embargo on all lethal weapons "could happen very quickly," a source close to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton told the paper.

It said that the embargo was considered a slap in the face for the world's second largest economic bloc as well as militarily ineffective by the EU as China increasingly builds its own weapons.

A confidential report presented to the last European Union summit that ended on December 17 described the embargo as "a major obstacle" to Europe-China security and foreign policy cooperation.

As a result "the EU should draw the practical conclusions and go ahead," the report said.

Europe was divided on the issue when it was discussed at a meeting of the EU's 27 foreign ministers in September, with some mooting the idea of a conditional lifting of the embargo.

Conditions included improved ties with Taiwan, an amnesty for arrests linked to the Tiananmen crackdown, and a calendar for the ratification of the convention on civil and political rights.

The Figaro said that the Netherlands, Britain and, to a lesser extent, Germany, had all lowered their opposition to lifting the embargo.

Chinese troops and tanks ended weeks of pro-democracy protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, killing hundreds if not thousands of demonstrators.

I really do doubt the EU will lift the embargo, US pressure will deter them.

It will be good news if it is lifted but I'm not sure what China would want to buy from which they can't already source (through "civilian use" channels). They can get all the powerplants and what few electronics they need from the EU already. Apart from helicopters I don't know what else they would want.

If the EU put up "conditions" then they may as well not consider lifting the embargo at all... Really in this case I think the EU would need China more than vice versa -- they've finally started to realise they're missing out on big business. (Or rather, they've "missed out" on big business.)

(Though the embargo is sort of useless -- it's not like the PLA will be using fighter aircraft or helicopters or missiles against protestors.)

 

[Blitzo]

i agree up to some degree with you, in 2010, stealth ACAVs exist in Europe, North America and Russia, the J-20 by it self as an airframe is not the whole deal , you need to consider avionics radar and weaponry.
The J-20 by it self is not a new military concept, stealth UCAVs like the TARANIS are as advanced as the J-20 because without a pilot in the plane 12Gs or 15Gs are attainable and a great deal of drag eliminated without a bulged canopy.

Wait you're comparing J-20 with stealth UCAVs like Taranis?? You think the two are comparable in payload, range, speed, manouverability?
UCAVs have the potential to pull many more Gs without pilots, but current UCAVs certainly aren't designed to do so and I'm not sure why you're mentioning something no country has started real development on.

But the airframe basicly tells you the main flight envelop and therefore what types of weapons it will use and role it has.

Oh please do tell.

The J-20 still will be limited to 9Gs so it won`t go so far from 4th generation fighters in agility.
On the Taranis stealth is easier to attain, so its stealth is even more limited than the one achieved by the X-47 naval UCAV.

From official figures the F-22's limited to 9Gs as well, no biggy... And of course UCAVs like X-47 and Taranis would be stealthier -- all they have to do is fly and drop a couple of bombs, take off and land. You're comparing apples to oranges.

The Chinese chose the most limiting configuration a delta with canard, the X-32 eliminated the tailplane just to later reinvented.
UCAVs like the Taranis or X-47 dispense of many elements and simplify stealth.

Again, are you saying the Taranis and X-47 can manouver like the J-20 or F-22 or T-50?

(And how is delta/canard limiting? And keep in mind we haven't seen pictures of the plane from top or bottom yet so we can tell if it's a true delta or a swept delta/diamond-ish wing. CAC would be stupid to design the wings a true delta without edge alignment.)

The J-20 shows a fighter with J-10 performance with stealth added, so they needed a twin engined aircraft with probably decent range and agility, used as an interdictor and air superiority against 4th generation types and a very good fighter versus the F-22 and F-35.

J-10 performance with stealth added... Right.
I'm sorry but did you just take a cheap shot like what latenlazy suggested in post 338?

Since the canard does not seem to have planforming it will bounce back more radar signals than the thrust vectoring capable F-22 that uses its nozzles to pitch and tailplanes to roll.

How can you tell the canards do not have planforming? (What is planforming?? Do you mean edge alignment?)
You seem to be able to tell a lot about the J-20's stealth and operation of control surfaces even though it hasn't even flown yet.

If the J-20 has thrust vectoring then the canards will need less deflection but the canard shape will be a drawback, the chinese did not use a template like the X-36 and this is probably because their engines are not ready so they need to get the most of agility from the conventional canard and delta wing.

Mhmm. I'm not qualified or experienced in aeronautics to tell heads or tails on this paragraph-- can anyone else with more knowledge comment (affirm, deny) what Mig is saying here?
And I still don't know why you believe canards are such a drawback .

The F-22 eliminated the canard need because the americans have simply better engines.

Lol wut? So you're saying the F-22 originally had canards in its design? Or that canards are only used by planes which do not have sufficient powerplants.

The use of a larger dorsal fin than the T-50`s and ventral fins shows probably their engine has limited thrust vectoring so the vertical tail still needs to be big and the vortices shed by the canard and forebody do affect up to some degree lateral stability.

this can imply as Novosti has said the Chinese will add russian engines until they can achieve a decent engine with thrust vectoring and supercruise

Again taking information from the Russians is not wise.

--------------
Can anyone else back up what Mig is trying to say? I actually don't unerstand half of it -- I'm not sure if it's because i'm not knowledgable or if his words just don't make sense.

 

[MiG-23MLD]

Wait you're comparing J-20 with stealth UCAVs like Taranis?? You think the two are comparable in payload, range, speed, manouverability?
UCAVs have the potential to pull many more Gs without pilots, but current UCAVs certainly aren't designed to do so and I'm not sure why you're mentioning something no country has started real development on.



Oh please do tell.



From official figures the F-22's limited to 9Gs as well, no biggy... And of course UCAVs like X-47 and Taranis would be stealthier -- all they have to do is fly and drop a couple of bombs, take off and land. You're comparing apples to oranges.



Again, are you saying the Taranis and X-47 can manouver like the J-20 or F-22 or T-50?

(And how is delta/canard limiting? And keep in mind we haven't seen pictures of the plane from top or bottom yet so we can tell if it's a true delta or a swept delta/diamond-ish wing. CAC would be stupid to design the wings a true delta without edge alignment.)



J-10 performance with stealth added... Right.
I'm sorry but did you just take a cheap shot like what latenlazy suggested in post 338?



How can you tell the canards do not have planforming? (What is planforming?? Do you mean edge alignment?)
You seem to be able to tell a lot about the J-20's stealth and operation of control surfaces even though it hasn't even flown yet.



Mhmm. I'm not qualified or experienced in aeronautics to tell heads or tails on this paragraph-- can anyone else with more knowledge comment (affirm, deny) what Mig is saying here?
And I still don't know why you believe canards are such a drawback .



Lol wut? So you're saying the F-22 originally had canards in its design? Or that canards are only used by planes which do not have sufficient powerplants.



Again taking information from the Russians is not wise.

--------------
Can anyone else back up what Mig is trying to say? I actually don't unerstand half of it -- I'm not sure if it's because i'm not knowledgable or if his words just don't make sense.

I will explain you in a more detailed way.

A canard has three main functions, one is to create lift ahead of the center of gravity of the aircraft and the other is to create vortices that will reenergize the delta wing.
A delta suffers from low performance at low speeds however it is an excellent wing for high speeds.
A third function is pitch control. this include supersonic trim pitch control.

Now try to see why the J-20 has a delta canard configuration.
first by using a delta wing it will have low drag at supercruise, but low performance at low speeds,
The Delta creates enough volume for fuel and having enough aft area is more resistent to center of lift shift at supersonic speeds,
So for supercruise it is an ideal wing for an aircraft that will fly at mach 1.5 at supercruise.
By coupling it to a canard you increase the AoA limits of the delta so you increase the turning ability of the J-20.
The Canard has the advantage of increasing the instantaneous turn rate since it is a lift vector ahead of the center of gravity, this makes for a quicker angular velocity for the J-20.

The canard also lowers the effects of the supersonic center of lift shift, so it makes for a relatively good supersonic agility..
Any lifting surface creates a downwash and in highly swept wings tip vortices, a highly swept canard creates powerful vortices but also a powerful downwash.
Straight wings lose less lift at high AoA than highly swept wings.
So the typical type of canard for fighter is a high aspect canard with good lift and less drag but weaker vortices.
Straight wings are high aspect (if the have long rectangular shape); deltas or triangular low aspect.
So a stealthy canard is a triangle so it is not as good in creating vortices since it is not really highly swept and is very draggy.
The canard of the X-36 is good for stealth but not good for performance.

Now the first configuration of the F-22 had canards the same was the F-35, why do you think they have tailplanes?
answer simple a canard is supposed to reduce supersonic shifts of the center of lift by the fact it is a lift vector ahead of the center of gravity,
The F-22 uses the vector thrust to reduce supersonic trim so it deflects its tailplane only for roll, so it does not make much drag for keeping the nose up at supercruise.

why a triangular shape is good for stealth? well if you look at the F-22 inlet caret shape they are a rombhus, the X-36 canards viewed from top also make a rombhus, so it repeats again the same angle used for reflecting the radar signals away from the source.

If you look at the YF-23 it has a triangular wing good for stealth but not as good for performance, again the YF-23`s wings make a rombhus seen from top view,
Now the J-20 does not have a wing with triangular shape but eurofighter styled canards and wings with different angles, either at their leading edges or trailing edges
This does not happen in the F-35, F-22 and T-50 that have their trailing and leading edges aligned.
The F-22 then uses tailplanes because the tailplane does not interact with the wing and does not need a specific shape like a canard to created vortices and reduce its drag.
another weakness of using canard is they need to be above wing level to shed their vortices upon the wing upper surface,
the F-22 has its tailplane at the same level of the wing and the same is the F-35 and T-50.
The J-10, Eurofighter, Gripen, Lavi, and Rafale all have their canards above wing level increasing radar returns but also increasing and improving AoA handling.

The F-22 has its tailplanes shielded by the wing so from a frontal view are hidden and from a lateral view create an angle with the wing trailing edge that increases stealth.

You could say that by using RAM materials you will eliminate the conventional shaping of the J-20`s canards, but while this is true 90% of the RCS reduction achieved by any stealth fighter is by shape alone.
Even the best RAM won`t turn a F-4 into an F-22. unless you change the shape.
The Chinese even know that if not they would have stayed with the J-10B as their fifth generation fighter.
RAM has the disadvantage of just work on some frequencies and not having some properties needed to build an aircraft

 

[gf0012-aust]

Your big picture may end up with low accuracy without careful analysis of details.

what - you think I haven't had a serious look at it? of course I have. I'm somewhat unimpressed with the commentary I've seen to date because in the main it has been of fanboi quality. where has anyone passed comment about the doctrine and tactical impact because of the design? none, zero nada. its been somewhat pretend technical analysis about "stealth". FFS they can't even get the terms right

e.g. if you don't look carefully, you will miss the IFR position.

how have I missed anything? I've given examples of what serious analysts will be looking at - and its not that the aircraft has a different shape encompassing LO trends. aircraft are developed and designed an extant of future doctrine. this aircraft shows a change in doctrine. as I said before, it could like a tomato and I wouldn't care outside of the fact that it means a potential change in how the chinese will fight. LO is academic at the design level for me.

BTW, your sacarism about the fan boys has missed out the bigger picture on this forum: most boys on this forum never believed that China can pull off her next gen fighter so quick. To me, all the happy fan boys deserve it, even just for a few days, with some wild dreams.

Well, I'm sorry that you think about the sarcasm being misplaced, but you must be reading different responses. People are focusing on the shape and the widgets - not that tactical shift and impact. That smacks of lightweight analysis to me. IF you've seen anything about my responses to chinese tech and weapons development over the last 5 years you'll have noted that mine are specifically weighted and exercise caution about the milestones.

Everything I have said about chinese aircraft carrier developments, about ballistic AShM has come to pass and has been within the timeframes I set - I'm a realist, I apply analysis to my comments - I'm not someone bored with life filling up internet responses with enthusiastic comments to make me feel happy about myself. If you ask serious china commentators like Xinhua (andy) about what I have said in the past, then you'll find that I temper my responses rather than get dragged into the seduction of the "china strong" banter that's sometimes passed off as evidence priori that chinas on the rise and those damn americans are about to get shoved sideways. etc etc... Thats ok for 15 yo nationalists but it doesn't cut too far with me.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I will explain you in a more detailed way.

You've given a wiki explanation of what canards do.

what you don't explain is that not all canard management systems are the same. eg the Typhoon, Kfir/Nesher and Rafale are very different in the way that their canards are managed - and why they are managed differently for the difference in aircraft employment roles.

now which canard system does the J20 employ?

(hint - its not on the internet)

 

[MiG-23MLD]

You've given a wiki explanation of what canards do.

what you don't explain is that not all canard management systems are the same. eg the Typhoon, Kfir/Nesher and Rafale are very different in the way that their canards are managed - and why they are managed differently for the difference in aircraft employment roles.

now which canard system does the J20 employ?

(hint - its not on the internet)

the design position and the ability to swivel affect the use of a canard, on the B-1B are as damp control, on the Su-34 are mostly used to lighten up the heavier forebody and also for damp control at low speeds however they also are vortex generators.
In a fighter like the Rafale they are closer to the wing so are used with emphasis on vortex generators but on the eurofighter the distance is a bit longer so are more effective as pitch control but have less effect as vortex generators.
the Kfirs basicly use them as vortex generators but because are fixed are not used as pitch control as the moveable canards of much newer generations.
The AJ-37 uses them as STOL devices they are low aspect and with flaps they aid the AJ-37 at take off and landing, its canards generate the most of lift at the expence of higher drag .
The B-70, Tu-144 uses them as vortex generators , but in the case of the Tu-144 only at take off and landing, On the B-70 these are far from the wing and are an aid for supersonic trim.
in General modern canards are moveable so are foreplanes not just strakes as on the Kfir.
so are mostly used as vortex generators and pitch control.
The J-20 is using them like that.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the design position and the ability to swivel affect the use of a canard, on the B-1B are as damp control, on the Su-34 are mostly used to lighten up the heavier forebody and also for damp control at low speeds however they also are vortex generators.
In a fighter like the Rafale they are closer to the wing so are used with emphasis on vortex generators but on the eurofighter the distance is a bit longer so are more effective as pitch control but have less effect as vortex generators.
the Kfirs basicly use them as vortex generators but because are fixed are not used as pitch control as the moveable canards of much newer generations.
The AJ-37 uses them as STOL devices they are low aspect and with flaps they aid the AJ-37 at take off and landing, its canards generate the most of lift at the expence of higher drag .
The B-70, Tu-144 uses them as vortex generators , but in the case of the Tu-144 only at take off and landing, On the B-70 these are far from the wing and are an aid for supersonic trim.
in General modern canards are moveable so are foreplanes not just strakes as on the Kfir.
so are mostly used as vortex generators and pitch control.
The J-20 is using them like that.

The key here is the Typhoon. in all the examples you are citing above there is one fundamental detail that has not been determined.

It has a critical impact on whether the aircraft is a fighter or a striker....

a canard is not a canard. or to paraphrase orwell, "ie all canards are not equal"

 

[jack412]

I really do doubt the EU will lift the embargo, US pressure will deter them.

It will be good news if it is lifted but I'm not sure what China would want to buy from which they can't already source (through "civilian use" channels). They can get all the powerplants and what few electronics they need from the EU already. Apart from helicopters I don't know what else they would want.

If the EU put up "conditions" then they may as well not consider lifting the embargo at all... Really in this case I think the EU would need China more than vice versa -- they've finally started to realise they're missing out on big business. (Or rather, they've "missed out" on big business.)

(Though the embargo is sort of useless -- it's not like the PLA will be using fighter aircraft or helicopters or missiles against protestors.)

tphuang's link from the last page sheds some light on the embargo
International Assessment and Strategy Center > Research > Report from the 2010 Chinese Defense Electronics Exhibition (CIDEX): Growing Industry – Advancing Technology

5) A Little Help From The EU
Norwegian electronics manufacturer, Sensonor. The company is offering its products on both the Chinese and Russian military markets
Sensonor’s MEMS gyroscope components offer the possibility for radically improving the accuracy of Chinese missile systems and precision-guided munitions

There are a number of firms worldwide producing components based on this type of technology, but the rest of them are barred from doing business in China due to the Tiananmen Square arms embargo. However Sensonor claim they can do business in China because “there is no ITAR content to our product.”

“We almost have to thank the US government for forbidding American firms from offering this product in China,” said one Sensonor engineer, “because the prohibition has more or less left this market completely open for us without any US or other competition.”

“This is a complex technology and it requires significant amounts of investment in industrial production equipment and years of experience to be able to produce these components on a cost-effective basis. This does not lend the technology to being easy to duplicate.”

Why selling this product into China is not considered a violation of the EU arms embargo on the PRC is unknown. Having no ITAR content may be one issue, but the significant increase it will bring to the accuracy of Chinese weaponry certainly violates the spirit – if not the letter – of the EU embargo.

 

[MiG-23MLD]

The key here is the Typhoon. in all the examples you are citing above there is one fundamental detail that has not been determined.

It has a critical impact on whether the aircraft is a fighter or a striker....

a canard is not a canard. or to paraphrase orwell, "ie all canards are not equal"

I do not know exactly what you are trying to say, but with my current knowledge a canard by it self does not determine if the aircraft is a fighter or striker,
What determines if an aircraft is a fighter or a bomber is based upon weight or max take off.
All bombers are in the range of more than 100 tonnes, the Tu-22M, Tu-160, B-1B and the canarded B-70 are really heavy,
tactical bombers or lite strikers are in the range of 50-40 tonnes like the Su-24, F-111, Su-34,
Multirole fighter-bombers are in the range of 20-35 tonnes.
fighters are devided upon light fighters and heavy fighters.
Light fighters and in the range of 15-18 tonnes in example MiG-29 and LCA
mid weight fighters are in the range of 22 tonnes like the Eurofighter and F-18C
This has to do with range.
modern interceptors are in the range of 40 tonnes in example the MiG-31 and Tu-128
Now what makes an aircraft a fighter is agility or the ability to fight other aircraft at close range.
Now going back to the J-20, its canards are not what determines if the aircraft is a fighter or a striker, today`s fighter are multirole, the Eurofighter is a air superiority with multirole capability so it is a fighter not a striker and it is a striker thanks to avionics not the canard.

The only striker with canards is the Su-34, this aircraft is a 40+ tonnes aircraft so it is too heavy to be a fighter, in the Su-34 the canards were fitted because the original forebody of the Su-27 had LERXes big enough to re-energize the wing, however because the LERX in the big head flanker is smaller than in the original Su-27 and its forebody heavier, adding canards increases the lifting area ahead of the center of gravity and generate vortices to the wing that otherwise would had been generated by the original bigger LERXs.
So in order to retain some of the agility of the original Su-27, the Su-34 added canards to keep the positive longitudinal stability.
On the Su-35 with canards, the addition of canards was done to reduce the tailplane area and increase the vortex control at post stall maneouvres, thanks to a better flight control system than the Su-33`s it could enter into the post stall regime deeper than the Su-33 could that only uses its canards as STOL aids.

The addition of canards on the Su-34 dampens turbulance in flight and work in a similar way to the B-1B`s small canards so its flight at low altitudes and high speeds is smoother than a fighter like the Su-30 or F-15E and comparable to a Su-24.
Because the Su-27 has tailplanes adding canards reduces the need to increase the tailplane size at post stall flight envelope which are needed to return the aircraft at leveled flight after the cobra.

Returning to the J-20 its role as a fighter will depend in its ability of its airframe to sustain more than 9Gs without any damage and its ability to offer enough lift to sustain tight turns.
weight will determine if its structure is limited to be an interceptor or an air superiority, the canard only will be used as a control device, trim at supersonic speed and vortex generator like any other aircraft with canards

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why selling this product into China is not considered a violation of the EU arms embargo on the PRC is unknown. Having no ITAR content may be one issue, but the significant increase it will bring to the accuracy of Chinese weaponry certainly violates the spirit – if not the letter – of the EU embargo.

US companies are aware of this issue though. eg US companies with majority ownership in scandinavian hi-tec h companies use EU ownership of IP to get around some of the ITARs issues.

I deal with a US military tech company doing this very thing right now... technically the technology is euro, even though the company is US majority owned, therefore they are not bound by US ITARs provisions.

added. I have the official c0ckpit shots of the article and am not convinced by what I've seen to date.

I want to see more substantiated 3rd party images.

 

[Feanor]

What exactly are you looking for, if I may ask? (also where could we access the cockpit shots?)

 

[gf0012-aust]

What exactly are you looking for, if I may ask? (also where could we access the cockpit shots?)

I was shown them about 3 months ago, so I need to check as to whether they were released outside of my group (email group, not a forum, much like the Skunkworks distribution group)

The layout of the cockpit didn't make sense, the screens, controls etc were "oddly " placed. the use of large widescreen displays goes against the issues of systems redundancy and protection. eg you lose the one screen and you would lose information management to 90% of your feeds. eg one small intrusion would kill information management to a significant level. there is a reason why you have multiple screens, one of them involves redundancy in the event of a compromised effect taking place, it makes screen layout easier, it makes cockpit design flexible.

I have no doubt that china can pull this off eventually, I have considerable doubt about it from what is on the net. Too much does not make sense- at an engineering level, at a human factors level..

 

[Feanor]

So we're looking at a tech demo? Or a very very early proto-type?

 

[Blitzo]

I was shown them about 3 months ago, so I need to check as to whether they were released outside of my group (email group, not a forum, much like the Skunkworks distribution group)

The layout of the cockpit didn't make sense, the screens, controls etc were "oddly " placed. the use of large widescreen displays goes against the issues of systems redundancy and protection. eg you lose the one screen and you would lose information management to 90% of your feeds. eg one small intrusion would kill information management to a significant level. there is a reason why you have multiple screens, one of them involves redundancy in the event of a compromised effect taking place, it makes screen layout easier, it makes cockpit design flexible.

I have no doubt that china can pull this off eventually, I have considerable doubt about it from what is on the net. Too much does not make sense- at an engineering level, at a human factors level..

Isn't the single large screen similar to the F-35s though, so wouldn't it face the same problems? If so then why is Lockheed sticking with the big (much hyped) touch screen display?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Isn't the single large screen similar to the F-35s though, so wouldn't it face the same problems? If so then why is Lockheed sticking with the big (much hyped) touch screen display?

the (prelim) J20 screen is a monster. from an engineering perspective, from a power and emissions perspective, from a human factors perspective, from a redundancy perspective it's just bad design.

I haver the same issues with the large display for JSF, but this is an order of magnitude bigger - by some margin

 

[gf0012-aust]

So we're looking at a tech demo? Or a very very early proto-type?

there are two prototypes, chinese philosophy has not been in the past to make identical sisters, superficially they might look the same, but I seriously doubt that they are identical at the fitout level.

IMO the cockpit layout also raises mission questions, and I don't believe that the articles shown are fighters, they are LR strikers and battle managers...

couple this with what we know of chinese developments in the NCW space, I'm pretty sure that they're filling in the spaces for whats termed "purple" operations.