Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread

[Bonza]

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.

Agree that it's not a simple process and definitely agree that tactical/doctrinal changes should be considered besides improvements in weaponry, I was more pointing out that the issue of addressing new high-capability fighters shouldn't be thought of purely from an air-to-air perspective, as the post to which I was responding had listed air-centric solutions. Just trying to open up the concept a bit (though there's others that could do it better than I).

Tphuang, good to see you around the place again mate.

 

[latenlazy]

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.

That's because most people see the speed of fighter development as an aggregate and not a fusion of different areas that can advance at different paces. I'd also wager that most people don't know how far along China has gotten in the semiconductor industry.

 

[SpudmanWP]

What is needed is a long range EO guided missile.

Already in the works ala JDRADM.

Besides, I am sure that Raytheon has already done preliminary work on integrating the 9X seeker into an AMRAAM. If I were them, I would have standardized the control commands for both missiles so that I could swap out seekers if ever needed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Already in the works ala JDRADM.

Besides, I am sure that Raytheon has already done preliminary work on integrating the 9X seeker into an AMRAAM. If I were them, I would have standardized the control commands for both missiles so that I could swap out seekers if ever needed.

cross seeker mods have been done on a few inflight missile families....it wouldn't surprise me either as a few countries played around with adaptations during the gulf war(s)

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Already in the works ala JDRADM.

Besides, I am sure that Raytheon has already done preliminary work on integrating the 9X seeker into an AMRAAM. If I were them, I would have standardized the control commands for both missiles so that I could swap out seekers if ever needed.

Had the impression that JDRADM was going the way of multi-band radar seeker for terminal attack.

Having said that, there are views expressed that with helmet-slaving, in the case of the F-35, the 9x is probably slaved not only to the radar but with the other onboard sensors.

LM has been marketing the sniper which uses flir & image processing as being capable of long ranged air to air targeting and tracking. I would presume that the tech is internalised in the f-35 as part of its sensor fusion suite. If the missile can utilise the same track, then agree that current tech already allows for long ranged EO attacks. I would guess any F-15/16/18s with the sniper/JHMCS combo should have alternative LO targeting capability. I'm not sure that's really the case but I'm making a guess that it can probably work.

Vid of sniper's A2A point track
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/Sniper/SniperVideo3.html

Sniper scored a USAF $b contract in Oct 10.

 

[SpudmanWP]

On the JDRADM-- It can use any of the three sensors for terminal attack (active radar, IIR, or passive HARM).

On the F-35, any weapon can use any sensor that can provide a weapons grade solution. For example with the F-35's AAMs, the pilot does not have to tilt his head to try and line up a shot. He only needs to select (by either touching the screen, using HOTAS, or speaking the command) the appropriate target on the threat display.

I think what the above poster meant by 'long-ranged EO attacks' is a completely passive attack, no radar (either active AAM or HARM) as it is assumed that a disciplined LO pilot will not be emitting and will need an IIR missile to engage.

Obviously a AMRRAM (especially the new D with it's GPS enhanced INS) might be able to burn through any jamming and the reduced RCS of a target while being guided with updates from the launcher's EO & other passive sensors.

 

[NICO]

One day after asking about what USA should do, more info on RQ170 comes out, I swear I had nothing to do with it, I wish!

PHOTO: Latest RQ-170 leak reveals new design secret - The DEW Line

I think the "response" of the USA will be to accelerate JDRADM.

 

[icekid]

Radar in J20 is said to be an AESA but the version is unkown. China is said to be developing its own AESA. China J20 definitely won't achieve all the specifications of F22. It will only pick some of them to suit their defensive requirements. China needs an aircraft that cannot be easily picked off at beyond vision range by F-22's. China doesnt have to match with F-22 in terms of its advanced avionics and specs for now because there wouldnt be any war between USA and China in near future. I feel J20 chengdu is a good aircraft for chinese however it wont be as effective as F22 for the years to come.

 

[Feanor]

Better yet, the J-20 doesn't have to match the F-22 at all.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Regarding the canard and its signal management, there had been research on it. This tells me whatever changes the final design might have, the canards are here to stay.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Better yet, the J-20 doesn't have to match the F-22 at all.

I think in this case, they have given some consideration to LO. However, judging by the all moving tail, control canards and TVC nozzle planned for later, I'd say they put maneuverability above all else. Different priorities produce different platforms.

 

[bmews]

A lot of online internets sites are blowing this whole Chinese J-20 supposed sthealth figther jet thing out of proportions.

For example over there at ausairpower.net I read a couple articles calling the J-20 :

"The stealth shaping is without doubt considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and, even more so, than that seen in the intended production configuration of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. "

and that

"Any notion that an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be capable of competing against this Chengdu design in air combat, let alone penetrate airspace defended by this fighter, would be simply absurd."

and that

"The US Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is outclassed in every respect, and would be as ineffective against a mature J-XX [J-20] as it is against the F-22A Raptor."

and it even concludes by saying:

"The material reality is simple. If the United States does not reverse course in its tactical air fleet and air defence recapitalization planning, the United States will lose the Pacific Rim to China, with all of the practical and grand strategic consequences which follow from that."

I just find that so warmongering..

I mean it doesn't really matter, what one see today in the US as far as aircraft technology is 30 or even 40 years behind the real technological edge it possesses. One probably can't even imagine what true DOD have now.

A plane is a plane - it doesn't matter in long run. What really matters are the systems that are installed on that plane. F22 has the most advanced ones in the world and even the Eurofighter can't match those. If F22 finds J20's on it's radar, it can lock automatically on 20 of them and shoot them down with fire-and-forget missiles. First strike, First look, Fist kill.

This J-20 is Junk. This thing doesn't even have afterburners. It looks like a hybrid F-22/MIG gone wrong. Most likely, its a subsonic surveillance platform or ground attack bomber that looks like a fighter. This thing wouldn't last 20 seconds in a dogfight with even an f-16. Stealth? No way....

And plus without an aircraft carrier (yes, I know they are attempting to build 2), this J20 is nada. The ability to fly a few miles offshore means nothing in Power Projection. The UK and even France have much higher Global Power Projection bec they have a large, modern navy with carriers. US has 11 Nimitz carriers with the ability to EACH carry appx 70 Super Hornets (4.5 gen). Proven in Red Flag and actual deployment. I'll take an F-15 Eagle over this J-20 right now.

And besides, what is the point of manned fighter aircraft today? Plaining on having man to man dog fights in the air? UAV seem much more reasonable, They are cheaper, faster, lighter and more maneuverable then manned aircraft, outside of a dogfight using guns the lag for controls is meaningless.

J-20 is just a technology demo and probably not even that much.. is just a fiberglass model mock-up, and other professional and experts have said that the RAM coating is fake or at least more outdated than F-117 that was shot down that was used to reverse engineer. And don't forget that Indian B-2 engineer jailed for exposing tech to the PLA. There has even been some rumors the Chinese that were using Photoshop or 3D animation gimmicks and state the J-20 never really flew up in the air, (olypmic fake fireworks anyone remember?) and/or it was a J-10 disguised to look like a stealthy prototype.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

I just find that so warmongering..

I mean it doesn't really matter, what one see today in the US as far as aircraft technology is 30 or even 40 years behind the real technological edge it possesses. One probably can't even imagine what true DOD have now.

A plane is a plane - it doesn't matter in long run. What really matters are the systems that are installed on that plane. F22 has the most advanced ones in the world and even the Eurofighter can't match those. If F22 finds J20's on it's radar, it can lock automatically on 20 of them and shoot them down with fire-and-forget missiles. First strike, First look, Fist kill.

This J-20 is Junk. This thing doesn't even have afterburners. It looks like a hybrid F-22/MIG gone wrong. Most likely, its a subsonic surveillance platform or ground attack bomber that looks like a fighter. This thing wouldn't last 20 seconds in a dogfight with even an f-16. Stealth? No way....

And plus without an aircraft carrier (yes, I know they are attempting to build 2), this J20 is nada. The ability to fly a few miles offshore means nothing in Power Projection. The UK and even France have much higher Global Power Projection bec they have a large, modern navy with carriers. US has 11 Nimitz carriers with the ability to EACH carry appx 70 Super Hornets (4.5 gen). Proven in Red Flag and actual deployment. I'll take an F-15 Eagle over this J-20 right now.

And besides, what is the point of manned fighter aircraft today? Plaining on having man to man dog fights in the air? UAV seem much more reasonable, They are cheaper, faster, lighter and more maneuverable then manned aircraft, outside of a dogfight using guns the lag for controls is meaningless.

J-20 is just a technology demo and probably not even that much.. is just a fiberglass model mock-up, and other professional and experts have said that the RAM coating is fake or at least more outdated than F-117 that was shot down that was used to reverse engineer. And don't forget that Indian B-2 engineer jailed for exposing tech to the PLA. There has even been some rumors the Chinese that were using Photoshop or 3D animation gimmicks and state the J-20 never really flew up in the air, (olypmic fake fireworks anyone remember?) and/or it was a J-10 disguised to look like a stealthy prototype.

While I understand Kopp and Goon have their own agenda writing their biased pieces, can you please tell me where you base your conclusions from? You seem very matter of fact about them.

I highlighted the parts. Reading the APA and coming back to your comment is like watching one extreme going to another.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A lot of online internets sites are blowing this whole Chinese J-20 supposed sthealth figther jet thing out of proportions.

SNIP

This J-20 is Junk. This thing doesn't even have afterburners. It looks like a hybrid F-22/MIG gone wrong. Most likely, its a subsonic surveillance platform or ground attack bomber that looks like a fighter. This thing wouldn't last 20 seconds in a dogfight with even an f-16. Stealth? No way....

Well you’ve quoted and expressed two extremes each as baseless as the other. On the far left that the J-20 is a super 5G fighter killer and on the far right that it’s not even a real plane. The reality is no doubt somewhere in between.

The J-20 is very much in conception like the PAK-FA. It’s what you build if you don’t have mastery of very low observability technology and high end sensor fusion (ie 5G fighters) and you want to try and be competitive with those that do. It’s an aircraft that wants to be very fast and very agile. The speed and agility is an attempt to stay alive in a battlespace in which you have very short warning (if any) of threats.

I doubt that this approach will be very successful because both the Russians and Chinese have based their anti-5G aircraft on a large twin engine FLANKER sized (or in the case of the PAK-FA an actual FLANKER derivative) rather than a smaller single engine airframe. It would appear they have gone the larger airframe path to carry around as big a radar as possible (unwilling to trust in offboard sensors thanks to jamming) to monster 4G aircraft and to provide a multi role capability. Despite the profusion of control surfaces the large size of these aircraft will reduce their roll rates and bank to capture a turn reducing their critical first move and jink responsiveness.

Anyway its not as if the capabilities these aircraft bring to the battlespace in terms of speed can’t be handled by tactics. Situational awareness (and counter situational awarenesss – ie stealth) remains the most important trait in any battlefield.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Well you’ve quoted and expressed two extremes each as baseless as the other. On the far left that the J-20 is a super 5G fighter killer and on the far right that it’s not even a real plane. The reality is no doubt somewhere in between.

The J-20 is very much in conception like the PAK-FA. It’s what you build if you don’t have mastery of very low observability technology and high end sensor fusion (ie 5G fighters) and you want to try and be competitive with those that do. It’s an aircraft that wants to be very fast and very agile. The speed and agility is an attempt to stay alive in a battlespace in which you have very short warning (if any) of threats.

I doubt that this approach will be very successful because both the Russians and Chinese have based their anti-5G aircraft on a large twin engine FLANKER sized (or in the case of the PAK-FA an actual FLANKER derivative) rather than a smaller single engine airframe. It would appear they have gone the larger airframe path to carry around as big a radar as possible (unwilling to trust in offboard sensors thanks to jamming) to monster 4G aircraft and to provide a multi role capability. Despite the profusion of control surfaces the large size of these aircraft will reduce their roll rates and bank to capture a turn reducing their critical first move and jink responsiveness.

Anyway its not as if the capabilities these aircraft bring to the battlespace in terms of speed can’t be handled by tactics. Situational awareness (and counter situational awarenesss – ie stealth) remains the most important trait in any battlefield.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that United States is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else in terms of VLO platforms as well as sensor technologies. If either China or Russia attempt to compete using conventional development strategy, they would have a hard time closing the gap. Even at the height of Soviet Union the Russians were still playing catch-up, not to mention a much weakened Russia since 1991. China was in worse shape than Soviet was development-wise, and only managed to field its first true 4th gen in 2004 (I normally disregard the induction of Flankers since they were originally imported from Russia). Even so, it is still reliant on Russia for turbofan engines.

These demonstrators or prototypes does not mean F-35 will suddenly start dropping like flies as Kopp and Goon claimed. At the same time, they are nothing to be laughed at either. At this stage, it is still too early to comment on these platforms with internet photos. The only thing confirmed is that both China and Russia are exploring ways to even the battlefield.

 

[HKSDU]

bmews is a troll. He is trying to post flame bait here. He tried in Sinodefenceforum and got banned quickly afterwards....his just trying to seek attention. Ignore this joker

 

[jaffo4011]

the unfortunate reality of air warfare,as illustrated by every conflict to date bar the gulf is that despite long range radar and missiles and all the intel in the world,the shooting still eventuly boils down to close range air combat where manoeveribility of both the aircraft and the weapon system is critical........esp when two comparable technologies meet and your sensor/technology is negated.

all the latest designs whether the f22,typhoon or j20 stll adhere to that concept and the tiffie and f22 are demonstrably super agile and were designed that way.....to suggest that that those abilties are not now necessary is absurd and short sighted.

if all that was required now was a missile carrier then you could just strap 30 long range aams to a giant and fast airframe with no agility and let them launch them when necessary.....which isnt what we appeared to have got in our super agile airframes....for good reason.

 

[Feanor]

Well you’ve quoted and expressed two extremes each as baseless as the other. On the far left that the J-20 is a super 5G fighter killer and on the far right that it’s not even a real plane. The reality is no doubt somewhere in between.

The J-20 is very much in conception like the PAK-FA. It’s what you build if you don’t have mastery of very low observability technology and high end sensor fusion (ie 5G fighters) and you want to try and be competitive with those that do. It’s an aircraft that wants to be very fast and very agile. The speed and agility is an attempt to stay alive in a battlespace in which you have very short warning (if any) of threats.

I doubt that this approach will be very successful because both the Russians and Chinese have based their anti-5G aircraft on a large twin engine FLANKER sized (or in the case of the PAK-FA an actual FLANKER derivative) rather than a smaller single engine airframe. It would appear they have gone the larger airframe path to carry around as big a radar as possible (unwilling to trust in offboard sensors thanks to jamming) to monster 4G aircraft and to provide a multi role capability. Despite the profusion of control surfaces the large size of these aircraft will reduce their roll rates and bank to capture a turn reducing their critical first move and jink responsiveness.

Anyway its not as if the capabilities these aircraft bring to the battlespace in terms of speed can’t be handled by tactics. Situational awareness (and counter situational awarenesss – ie stealth) remains the most important trait in any battlefield.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions in regards to the parallels between the J-20 and the PAK-FA. One is clearly a far more mature design (i.e. much closer to serial production, the pre-serial production batch is expected to start 2013-2014), and is built for a very specific set of requirements. I.e. a fairly heavy multi-role fighter that will be massively superior to all late 4th gen designs. The environment for which the PAK-FA is designed is a fairly known quantity - the FSU, and it's immediate geo-political surroundings.

I would go as far as to say that the PAK-FA is the true Super Flanker. (something usually reserve for the Su-3XXXX series).

The J-20 on the other hand is far less known quantity, and given that it's also further from a serial run, we can't be positive about what exactly it's expected to do. It may even be a tech demo as has been suggested. I would wait and see.

On a related note, you seem very adamant about bashing twin-engine designs as LO platforms. What then of the F-22?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

On a related note, you seem very adamant about bashing twin-engine designs as LO platforms. What then of the F-22?

??? I didn't say anything about twin engines in relation to LO. But rather in relation to roll rate. A big plane with a wide fuselage, side by side engines and wide wings like a F-15, F-18, F-22, J-20 is naturally going to have a higher roll rate than a narrow, single engine, short wing aircraft like the F-16, F-35 and J-10.

PS: I'll respond to some other points later when I've got more time.

 

[Feanor]

My mistake, it seemed implied.

So, to probe a little further, if the PAK-FA was in USAF service, would you still not call it a 5th gen aircraft? And what exactly in regards to sensor fusion do you take issue with on the PAK-FA? (an interesting critique to direct at it, given that its full sensor suite has yet to be revealed)