I'll see whats releasable.
if not we are going to continue to suffer from 300 interpretations of what 5th gen is - even when aircraft engineers state it. apparently politicians are more credible for definitions that tac planners and engineers
Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread
if not we are going to continue to suffer from 300 interpretations of what 5th gen is - even when aircraft engineers state it. apparently politicians are more credible for definitions that tac planners and engineers
and I've repeatedly said that IMO this was a CTD - apparently even the chinese agree....
again, one has to ask, that if Dryden and air forces were articulating what 5th gen concepts were 10 years ago, and where those concepts have been maintained, why would anyone take commentary from the political executive as being the basis for a technical definition - and as absolute.
that just beggars belief. geez, the USAF was articulating 5th gen concepts 25 years ago - well before the general public grasped onto the ridiculous idea that its just commercial marketing.
you don't have to go far on the internet to see this belief system about it being based on commercial spin as an absolute.
thats why I get absolutely frustrated at some who spout absolute crap and present it as a technical absolute and that the military apparently are oblivious to the fact that Boeing/Sukhoi/Dassauilt/LM et al have suckered them into this commercial spin cycle...
thats not serious debate, thats just trolling IMO.
I have no time for lightweight debate where these things are trivialised and the urge is to write off technical processes and definitions as the demon spawn of marketing.
give me a break.
The definition I've found in Russia sources is 1) supercruise 2) AESA 3) some form of LO 4) advanced EO sensors 5) high level of sensor fusion, and AI in the avionics.I'll see whats releasable.
if not we are going to continue to suffer from 300 interpretations of what 5th gen is - even when aircraft engineers state it. apparently politicians are more credible for definitions that tac planners and engineers
But it's rather vague and not entirely official. It's the one most Russian sources use when discussing 5th gen. as a concept. It would be very helpful to get the official one from another country.
Demonstrator appears to be Chinese terminology for prototype. The first J-10 was reffered to by the same chracters 验证机 (confirmation machine).and I've repeatedly said that IMO this was a CTD - apparently even the chinese agree....
That's not exactly true. A "confirmation plane" is indeed at the demonstrator stage of development, but western sources often refer to them as prototypes because at least up to now, every significant demonstrator has progressed to operational squadrons, unlike say the S-47 or the YF-23.
So it sort of depends on how you define a prototype. If you look at it as the first iteration of a plane that will eventually be in service barring unforeseen circumstances, then you can call this a prototype. For these people, it would seem that China often makes significant changes between prototypes ala the development of the JF-17. If you look at it as the final production version except with some kinks still to be ironed out, then this is still a demonstrator and not near as close to the final thing as say the F-22A prototype.
There is a possibility that a prototype will evolve out of this plane. There are persistent rumors that both CAC and SAC have entered their designs, with SAC's due to fly later this year. Perhaps they are at a comparable stage where the ATF program was at prior to 1997.and I've repeatedly said that IMO this was a CTD - apparently even the chinese agree....
I'd be betting money on it.
This is not the pre-prod article IMO - too many outstanding issues on it.
china has a recent history of delivery test platforms in small tranches (pairs usually) this has been the case with CEC skimmers, AShM green water assets, A&EW, subs....etc....
i'd also opine that the reason why they are doing this is because one stays as the baseline and subsequent are used as iterations.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
I would not disagree and to clarify, the comment you replied too was a general one about trying to discern the underlying policy reasoning between any difference between reality and political spin. Effectively giving it a "Public Health Warning".
Re J-20 itself, I think I have said as much as I can based on a few photos and some short videos. I still hold to the views previously expressed and await further hard information before modifying them any further.
SAC's design has already been rejected, the CAC design is the one that will become the Chinese ATF. SAC's working on their own thing though, there are some rumors that they're working on a F-15SE equivalent, as sort of a low-cost 5th gen-ish fighter. There are also some rumors that they're going ahead with their rejected design, but modifying it to make it a fighter-bomber, with private funding. As far as 5th gen primary air superiority fighter goes though, the J-20 is the one.
I don't see many outstanding issues, at least not just from pictures. After studying this thing for quite a while, it seems to me like they took great effort to make all the components fit together rather than mix-and-matching various design concepts like some have suggested. This is definitely a test platform, but the final thing won't be TOO different, IMO.
Interesting thought there, do the Chinese have the defense capability/industry to run a competition a la ATF:YF22 vs YF23 and PW vs GE? I don't think so. Maybe the "losing" design will be changed to a "lesser" requirement or delayed? IMO, I think some of the alarmists are going way to far when we know so little about this program. It will be interesting to see if second article is similar to first article.
Also, not sure even then how much it means, J10A was pretty much put into service than we saw significant changes with J10B so even if China introduces J20 rapidly, that probably still doesn't mean it is definitive version.
I'm assuming you mean 1.44/1.42 since 1.45 is not an actual MiG aircraft.
I seriously doubt the two are related.
they actually look nothing like each other when compared in orthographic projection.
the MiG concept has a full delta wing right after the canards. this requires the canard to be place at different height from the main wing so they don't interfere with which other. the J-20 concept has LERX between the canard and the delta wing all place along the nose height on the top half of the plane vs the MiG that has the main wing offset below than the nose of the plane while it canard is offset above the nose. since the wings on the J-20 start later in the body, it is also noticeably smaller than any MiG concept.
J-20 also uses DSI and side intake instead of bottom intake favour by russian design. MiG has no chines while the J-20 has them and we have not yet cover the various stealth feature(we assume the MiG can be updated to have them as well).
one can argument the MiG concept look just as much like the Eurofighter. however there are clear differences between the 3 planes when you compare them.
We've wavered and we've debated. But i think this thread is a perfect example of all China was really trying to do - get the rest of the world to question just what it is they are doing.
Seriously? Did they really keep it so secret that the first time we get to see it is practically its first flight? Not that that is entirely untenable. But in the good ol days of the Cold War, intelligence leaks were common place of recon runs via aircraft or satellite of Ramenskoye to see what nifty new things Mikoyan/Sukhoi/Tupolev/Antonov came up with. Are we saying we don't have the need or capability to that anymore? And back to the point; why keep it such a top level secret then simply totally expose? Ah yes, the debate.
Seriously? Did they really keep it so secret that the first time we get to see it is practically its first flight? Not that that is entirely untenable. But in the good ol days of the Cold War, intelligence leaks were common place of recon runs via aircraft or satellite of Ramenskoye to see what nifty new things Mikoyan/Sukhoi/Tupolev/Antonov came up with. Are we saying we don't have the need or capability to that anymore? And back to the point; why keep it such a top level secret then simply totally expose? Ah yes, the debate.
A few commentators brought up the "it looks like a Mig 1.44" but I don't buy it. There is at best a passing resemblance. Also wouldn't the Chinese have more experience working with Sukoi/NAPO or Irkutsk? China probably has more experience working with Ukraine or Israel technicians than Migs engineers. Last but not least, I think China wants to shed the image of always depending on others to help with their jets, not sure they would want any help.
Just had a thought somewhat related to J20 subject, what should be USA response if any to J20?
We had the calls for more F22s but I was wondering about something different or out of box. With the end of production of the F22, all the problems with F35, first flight of PAKFA and J20, does USA need a different or more pronounced response? With all the talk of USA in decline, should USA do something in the short term to reassure everyone?
- More F22s? already talked about that in previous posts.
- Declassify more info on RQ170 "beast of Kandahar"
- Declassify more info/role on X37
- Declassify a new design
- Start work on new AMRAAM? Buy Meteor instead?
- Something else???
Or should USA should stay the course and do nothing?
Just had a thought somewhat related to J20 subject, what should be USA response if any to J20?
We had the calls for more F22s but I was wondering about something different or out of box. With the end of production of the F22, all the problems with F35, first flight of PAKFA and J20, does USA need a different or more pronounced response? With all the talk of USA in decline, should USA do something in the short term to reassure everyone?
- More F22s? already talked about that in previous posts.
- Declassify more info on RQ170 "beast of Kandahar"
- Declassify more info/role on X37
- Declassify a new design
- Start work on new AMRAAM? Buy Meteor instead?
- Something else???
Or should USA should stay the course and do nothing?
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
What is needed is a long range EO guided missile.
The Meteor won't be better than the Amraam in tackling an aggressor stealth fighter.
What is needed is a long range EO guided missile.
Why fight any of these new whizz-bang fighters in the air if you can avoid it? Use land attack capabilities, special forces, and LO drones to attack the enemy sensor/comms systems and operational and logistical targets necessary for aircraft to operate at all. It's not going to do much good having the best fighter in the world if you haven't got any fuel, weapons, runways, or air tasking capability.
I realise this is under ideal circumstances but from what I understand current US priority is to destroy these things on the ground whenever and wherever possible. Certainly more practical than playing chicken with LO fighters whizzing about everywhere.
Don't know about reassuring the public, don't see the need.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
How does one attack airfields inland with spec ops or other conventional means against heavy ground and air defences? Multi-$m Tomahawks can be shot down. So can LO UAVs. Subs will have to penetrate coastal defences.
Future air attack after 2020 will itself be countered by defensive CAP operated by stealth aircraft. There will be tactical changes besides the usual weaponry improvement focus.
Easier said than done.
How does one attack airfields inland with spec ops or other conventional means against heavy ground and air defences? Multi-$m Tomahawks can be shot down. So can LO UAVs. Subs will have to penetrate coastal defences.
Future air attack after 2020 will itself be countered by defensive CAP operated by stealth aircraft. There will be tactical changes besides the usual weaponry improvement focus.
kind of hard to start programs in cultural revolutions. Officially, J-10 started in 1986 and achieved IOC on 2004.
That's a good explanation of your position.
No, they combined the industrial might of SAC and CAC and designed this. btw, consider that CAC, the main contractor, has never successfully designed a heavy (or even twin-engined) aircraft before. On top of that, none of the past CAC designs really had much signature reduction in mind (other than possibly the s-duct on J-10). Quite a lot of work for them to come up with what they have. They really don't have the money or the brain power to do two designs at the same time.
Still, that's small cake compared to the gap they'd need to make up for a successful 5th generation engine design. Even if the design is successful, then we still need to worry about the engine production capability.
That along with stealth are obviously the two biggest challenges for China's 5th gen program.
Also, I think avionics/radar is the area that China has the least to worry about. Nobody seems to believe me on this one, but we will have to wait and see.