J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
How do you know this for sure? Let's see the evidence. One photo btw is not evidence of any of your big claims. I'd like to know which fields of assistance was offered apart from China's first 4th gen FBW software which Chinese designers themselves said in the first place. J-20 being a totally different plane in weight, proportions, aerodynamics, distribution, materials, engines, control surfaces etc means FBW software would need to be custom developed for it.
Not from out of nowhere. Took more than 30 years in total for both combined. CAC had experience with J-9 and other experiences they didn't tell you about. Along with FBW assistance from Israel. Maybe it was crucial maybe it was just for checking and testing... helping the Chinese team setting up the engineering methods. If this is what you mean, what value is there in posting this? What are you trying to say by saying CAC relied on some unknown extent of Israeli assistance in its first attempt at complex FBW? I don't see value in posting this gibberish unless there is a point. There doesn't seem to be a point so why post it? Please say the point you are being subtle but obvious about ie Chinese engineers are less capable because they need assistance and only with assistance did they manage to go beyond J-10... the implication being other nations could do so as well if only they had assistance. That's what is implied but hopefully people can see how this is 100% incorrect on very conceivable level. If you want prove, look at the technical cooperation offered by western nations (advanced science and tech and matured industries) to China and compare it with other nations who cannot do what China's managed.
Are you a mechanical engineer? Do you have experience in aeronautical industry? So what gives you the intellectual authority to say miracles simply don't happen. Engineers hate verbosity (i'm often guilty) and even worse... ambiguity in language. Define "miracle" empirically or it means nothing. Claiming J-10 is a miracle is not good enough. J-10 is not tier 1 by US standards today or even when it came out in the 00s. It makes perfect sense for a China catching up to be a few decades behind the US equivalent in F-16 (electronics and sensors aside). So where's the miracle tier 1 stuff?
There is general consensus that Israeli assistance with FBW was sourced for the first Chinese 4th gen fighter projects which eventually resulted in J-10. J-11 is a Su-27 derivative and likely no Israeli help sought or needed on that one. J-10 does superficially but closely resemble Lavi in dimensions and layout. Clearly there is something there. But the real extent of the initial assistance eludes us. Maybe CAC just used the Lavi layout since much of the groundwork was done. The workload in bringing J-10 out of Lavi would have been considerable. There is zero evidence J-20 used Israeli or any outside assistance on anything. To suggest there is because both fighters came from CAC is simply not correct. This may not mean it isn't true but bringing J-20 into Master's already unsubstantiated statement is even more cause for concern.
If one wishes to believe that J-10 is 100% Lavi with minor cosmetic changes and FBW completely done by Israel and in Israel, they can do so. To suggest this is definitely true on a forum is incorrect and should at least come with disclaimers disclosing the poster's complete ignorance in the subject. MasterKhan did not work on either J-10 project or with Lavi. Bringing J-20 into the discussion is ridiculous. J-10 completed in the 00s and J-20 completed in more than 15 years later. This is not "suddenly from out of nowhere". Both projects spanned a total of 30 odd years which may not even include the groundwork in J-8 testbeds and J-9 project.
Canard fighters are far from miracles of engineering for technologically competent nations. Because most nations on Earth cannot do so does not mean China must also be incapable and the fact they have must therefore mean it was stolen or done with total reliance on outside assistance. None of us really know for sure to say any of this with certainty but applying some reasoning, we can at least be fair with what we say
My post is not insulting, political, or off-topic. It is a fair response to a post that remains on the thread, and it should remain.
Last edited:
Just to remind people who do not know what this is. This is the J-8II ACT. This is a J-8II fitted with canards and a digital FBW system that started testing around 1988. There was a previous bird called the J-8 ACT that goes even further way back, uses the J-8I airframe and the first FBW developed in China.
Even if or when foreign input came into the project, there was substantial prior domestic experience from these programs. FBW system is much more difficult to develop than the two, canards have been with aircraft since the first Wright flyer and relatively a no brainer to implement, The Israelis slapped canarads into Mirage airframes to create Kfirs out of nowhere.
I believe the J-8 ACT was destroyed from a crash during testing. The J-8II ACT survived and ended up in a museum somewhere, though it lost its original paint trimmings.
Let's call this one: Sunset upon global domination!
Indeed I missed that post and I apologize for that, however these constant "Pakistan gets all it wants" are indeed stupid since these's nothing for free in life especially not in politics.
Also i did not mention you by name ... consequently it was no personnel insult.
Thread cleaned.
Deino
plawolf
Lieutenant General
And Israel’s help was instrumental because of its extensive history with frontline canard designs?
Israel is where it is in defence primarily because of American tech transfers and assistance. Another country famous for its use of canards on its frontline fighter jets?
The Lavi was based overwhelmingly on the F16, and I would rate its canards research value as less than the J9 and on par with the J8 canard teethed, since as with the J8, canards were added to an existing design. Whereas the J9 was a clean sheet design incorporating canards from the offset.
As already pointed out by others, CAC have been researching canards for decades before the J10.
Also, your reasoning is fatally flawed since it is circular. One cannot make a successful new design without past successful experience, but how would one get past successful experience in the first place then?
The J20 was designed with the experience from the J10. Those two are in serious but you speak as if they were designed in parallel.
Again, circular reasoning same as above. By that line of reasoning, no one would ever have been able to make a tier 1 product since no one would have had past history making such a product until they first did it.
Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. There are plenty of big names with illustrious design histories of making top of the line fighters that are no longer in the fighter business, or indeed, in business at all.
- Status