Chinese Aviation Industry

A little bit afraid to derail the topic but still couldn't resist Following pictures shows the "finish quality" of J-20 vs Su-57. J-20 pays more attention to stealth then Su-57 does hence surface finish+ram coating creates a much finer looking plane.






I personally think only area where China lags behind Russia is the engines. For all others, China either on par or ahead. This does not mean CR929 collaboration was not a good idea. On contrary I think it was a great idea. I wonder whether a larger consortium by including other nations is/was possible. An "Asian AIRBUS" with the involvement of S. Korea and Japan would had been interesting May be a CRKJ-939 is possible, lol..

Tirdent said:

You are either confusing the Su-35 for the Su-57 or you need to look again at a Su-57 photo - closely. It has both all-moving horizontal (as indeed have all supersonic aircraft since the 1950s, excepting pure deltas without any h-stab like the Mirage series!) and vertical tails. Moreover its vertical tail area is more dramatically reduced than the J-20's (no ventral strakes either), likely making FCS design significantly more challenging.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Add to that TVC and LEVCONs...

Click to expand...

It could be your wordings but did you say all supersonic fighter jets have all moving vertical stabilizers as well? I think the reverse is true before the advent of stealth fighters. Even the F-22 has a fixed vertical stabilizer.

So both the aircraft have all moving control surfaces (I was responding to the other poster who claimed that J-20 don't have all moving control surfaces.)

The size of the vertical stabilizers of both aircraft, relatively, are about the same. I notice the Su-57's vertical stabilizers have a protrusion at its base which is probably there for aerodynamic reasons (i.e. the base of the vertical stabilizer, albeit a small part, still remains.), to some detriment to stealth.

foxmulder_ms said:

I wonder whether a larger consortium by including other nations is/was possible. An "Asian AIRBUS" with the involvement of S. Korea and Japan would had been interesting May be a CRKJ-939 is possible, lol.

Click to expand...

I think this is a fantastic notion that should be explored to the limits of possibility. There is little that could advance China's national interest further than a harmonisation of national relationships within East Asia, and while such changes can only occur over generational timescales as the product of mutually beneficial cooperation, negotiation in good faith, and recognition of and respect for the integrity and interests of the other, there is also a role for large-scale joint projects to serve as powerful symbols that open minds to new possibilities. Think of the long history of enmity between Britain and France and the role of projects like Concorde and the Chunnel in cementing a consciousness that acknowledges both similarities and differences.

But whilst embracing such visionary idealism, one must also be realistic both about the limits of such projects to advance such broad national aims, and most importantly the practical sacrifices that such projects would entail for Chinese industry. For in partnering with smaller nations such as Japan and especially South Korea or even smaller nations such as Vietnam or Malaysia, it is almost certainly the case that China would lose more -- in terms of domestic workshare, design rights, etc. -- than she would gain in terms of access to technology and a modestly expanded market. In short, the more narrow economic/technological/industrial aspects of a project would be sacrificed for, and subservient to, a greater strategic vision for the nation.

This essentially characterises the United States' relationship with Japan during the Cold War: economic/industrial policies that were broadly advantageous to Japan and disadvantageous to America were tolerated by the latter because the United States government had a broader interest in ensuring that Japan flourished under the umbrella of American hegemony, both to serve as a counterweight against the communist East, and to guard against the emergence of revisionist sentiments within Japan itself. If China is to achieve harmony in its relationships with Japan, Korea, etc. such that each nation no longer views the other with suspicion, nor feels the need to maintain large military forces against potential encroachments by the other, similar sacrifices will be required. Genuine change requires good faith from all parties, maintained over a long period, but it is the larger power that can and must make the first moves, take the greatest risks, and make the most sacrifices.

I am not sure that China is ready to embrace such things today -- to move beyond narrowly conceived "win-win cooperation" to "cooperation for the sake of building a better world." But I hope that in the coming years and decades, as China's own material prosperity and self-assuredness increases, such things become possible.

Deino said:

Guys ... either you immediately STOP with this J-20-built quality vs Su-57 or I'll delete the last posts!

Click to expand...

Well, it's an interesting discussion though so how about (since it transcends the J-20 vs. Su-57 comparison) moving them to the "Chinese Aviation Industry" thread? It would seem to fit into that topic better than anywhere else. I've already added replies to some of the posts above in there.

Bltizo said:

Regarding this point in particular, I think the external fit and finish of a self developed demo like FC-31 compared to a state funded series of prototypes like the T-50 airframes is not fully fair.

Click to expand...

That (Su-57 vs. J-31) is not a comparison I was attempting to make with that statement, for all the reasons you mention that would be facile. It was merely to point out with respect to the WZ-8 that matt black paint makes it difficult in the extreme to judge such things, to the point where even far more obvious surface details like weapons bay doors can vanish completely. For years after the first flight of the Su-47 in 1997 there was a legitimate debate about whether it had bays or not due to the absence of clear photos, this was not settled until it appeared in public at MAKS 4 years later. Even then, because it only participated in the flying display and thus the number of high-quality pictures remained very limited, you often had to still argue the point for several more years.

As for J-20 vs. Su-57, it's difficult to make a good comparison as we've neither seen very many close-ups of Su-57s with full coatings (which only the last 3 prototypes have) nor any photos whatsoever of truly "naked" J-20s. All primer photos of the latter already include a significant amount of RAM treatments and the anti-corrosion paint is no longer differentiated by surface material (indicating it's not the bottom-most layer, as is the case with primer Su-57s). J-20 prototypes #2001 and 2002 might make a decent point of comparison, but then we run back into the matt black paint problem (and like the early Su-57s and J-31 v1.0 they are not necessarily representative of the finished article). All I can say is that close-ups of unpainted Su-57s indicate a very high surface quality that compares well with photos of F-35 subassemblies under construction, and that goes even for the very first prototype (see below).

foxmulder_ms said:

A little bit afraid to derail the topic but still couldn't resist Following pictures shows the "finish quality" of J-20 vs Su-57. J-20 pays more attention to stealth then Su-57 does hence surface finish+ram coating creates a much finer looking plane.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty gross apples and oranges comparison. For starters, it's a production J-20 with full coatings versus an early prototype Su-57 (indicated by the external band-aid reinforcements on the horizontal stabilizers and the strain gauges bonded to the wing) wearing only normal top coat. Further the lighting conditions in the Su-57 photo are extremely unflattering, far more so than in the J-20 image: look at the length of the shadows cast, especially by the LE flaps over the wing! On the J-20 they reach barely 1/3 of the chord near the tip, while they completely blanket the entire thing (and then some) on the Su-57. So any surface irregularities are amplified correspondingly more strongly on the Su-57 picture (in fact, most of what we see is probably variations in reflectivity due to paint distribution or stains, rather than actual dents or bumps).

Tirdent said:

That (Su-57 vs. J-31) is not a comparison I was attempting to make with that statement, for all the reasons you mention that would be facile. It was merely to point out with respect to the WZ-8 that matt black paint makes it difficult in the extreme to judge such things, to the point where even far more obvious surface details like weapons bay doors can vanish completely. For years after the first flight of the Su-47 in 1997 there was a legitimate debate about whether it had bays or not due to the absence of clear photos, this was not settled until it appeared in public at MAKS 4 years later. Even then, because it only participated in the flying display and thus the number of high-quality pictures remained very limited, you often had to still argue the point for several more years.

As for J-20 vs. Su-57, it's difficult to make a good comparison as we've neither seen very many close-ups of Su-57s with full coatings (which only the last 3 prototypes have) nor any photos whatsoever of truly "naked" J-20s. All primer photos of the latter already include a significant amount of RAM treatments and the anti-corrosion paint is no longer differentiated by surface material (indicating it's not the bottom-most layer, as is the case with primer Su-57s). J-20 prototypes #2001 and 2002 might make a decent point of comparison, but then we run back into the matt black paint problem (and like the early Su-57s and J-31 v1.0 they are not necessarily representative of the finished article). All I can say is that close-ups of unpainted Su-57s indicate a very high surface quality that compares well with photos of F-35 subassemblies under construction, and that goes even for the very first prototype (see below).



That's a pretty gross apples and oranges comparison. For starters, it's a production J-20 with full coatings versus an early prototype Su-57 (indicated by the external band-aid reinforcements on the horizontal stabilizers and the strain gauges bonded to the wing) wearing only normal top coat. Further the lighting conditions in the Su-57 photo are extremely unflattering, far more so than in the J-20 image: look at the length of the shadows cast, especially by the LE flaps over the wing! On the J-20 they reach barely 1/3 of the chord near the tip, while they completely blanket the entire thing (and then some) on the Su-57. So any surface irregularities are amplified correspondingly more strongly on the Su-57 picture (in fact, most of what we see is probably variations in reflectivity due to paint distribution or stains, rather than actual dents or bumps).

View attachment 59134

View attachment 59135

View attachment 59136

View attachment 59138

Click to expand...

Look at these detail pictures of J-20. Every single panel line is designed for stealth. Su-57 just don't care about stealth as much. The final finish is not to the same standard.








This is a part of aircraft production philosophy. Does not tell the entire story of the system's success or potential.

Tirdent said:

That (Su-57 vs. J-31) is not a comparison I was attempting to make with that statement, for all the reasons you mention that would be facile. It was merely to point out with respect to the WZ-8 that matt black paint makes it difficult in the extreme to judge such things, to the point where even far more obvious surface details like weapons bay doors can vanish completely. For years after the first flight of the Su-47 in 1997 there was a legitimate debate about whether it had bays or not due to the absence of clear photos, this was not settled until it appeared in public at MAKS 4 years later. Even then, because it only participated in the flying display and thus the number of high-quality pictures remained very limited, you often had to still argue the point for several more years.

As for J-20 vs. Su-57, it's difficult to make a good comparison as we've neither seen very many close-ups of Su-57s with full coatings (which only the last 3 prototypes have) nor any photos whatsoever of truly "naked" J-20s. All primer photos of the latter already include a significant amount of RAM treatments and the anti-corrosion paint is no longer differentiated by surface material (indicating it's not the bottom-most layer, as is the case with primer Su-57s). J-20 prototypes #2001 and 2002 might make a decent point of comparison, but then we run back into the matt black paint problem (and like the early Su-57s and J-31 v1.0 they are not necessarily representative of the finished article). All I can say is that close-ups of unpainted Su-57s indicate a very high surface quality that compares well with photos of F-35 subassemblies under construction, and that goes even for the very first prototype (see below).

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that comparing aircraft in black paint is a bit pointless.

That's why I think WZ-8 and FC-31 are not really useful for the sake of comparison, nor is J-20's 200X prototypes.
However J-20s after that -- ones in grey paint, as well as ones in yellow primer in particular very much are useful imo.


The few close up photos we have of Su-57 may be indeed earlier airframes so far may not represent the state of what the aircraft's fit and finish is meant to be, however even comparisons with equivalent early J-20 201X prototypes do not do allow those Su-57s to shine that positively.

In time we will have some better pictures of production Su-57s when they arrive with their full treatments, and it may be fair to withhold judgement or concrete comparisons for now.

As I said, for various reasons I think attempts to compare its finish directly with the J-20 are a bit fruitless, I prefer to judge the Su-57 on its own merits in this regard. And based on the primer photos I posted (which largely avoid irregularities in reflectivity from smudges or variations in paint texture), it's frankly hard to see how it could be appreciably better. And that's the very first flyable airframe!