J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Because this is a fighter engine it wouldn’t get the chance to trail the afterburners on a transport. They can trail them in chambers but the acid test is still in the air on a fighter.
Also Flanker is a twin engine so if it did fail it may be able to still land on one engine.
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
The J-20 is more complicated to program than a J-11/J-16, and there are many more of those to go around too.

If the WS-15 works on J-11 series, it’s almost for sure going to be on a future update.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Biscuits said:
The J-20 is more complicated to program than a J-11/J-16, and there are many more of those to go around too.

If the WS-15 works on J-11 series, it’s almost for sure going to be on a future update.
Click to expand...
I would have maybe suggested mounting onto an early J-20 prototype and skipping the Flanker to save the trouble of programming it to both the J-20 and a Flanker design that's never going to use WS-15 (unless that's not true...) but that's not AVIC's style. They like to be very methodical and take small steps but with each step being successful and quickly moving onto the next step. No shortcuts like my suggestion. If a J-20 (even a prototype) crashed with a WS-15 in testing, hostile foreign media's gonna die laughing...
 
K

kyuryu

Junior Member
siegecrossbow said:
They'd be hard pressed just building enough WS-15s for the J-20. See how long it took for the WS-10 to trickle down to the J-10C?
Click to expand...

I feel there would be merit in pursuing both options concurrently, noting your comments about production bottlenecks. Firstly, an upgrade to the Flanker (final production of the proposed J-11D?) with the WS-15 and incorporating lessons learnt from inducting and studying the latest Russian Su-35 (composites etc.) with Chinese subsystems, weapons, EW and AESA and Secondly a new iteration of the J-20 with WS-15.

The second option will likely take longer to optimise but together would provide a truly formidable combination.
 
R

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
kyuryu said:
I feel there would be merit in pursuing both options concurrently, noting your comments about production bottlenecks. Firstly, an upgrade to the Flanker (final production of the proposed J-11D?) with the WS-15 and incorporating lessons learnt from inducting and studying the latest Russian Su-35 (composites etc.) with Chinese subsystems, weapons, EW and AESA and Secondly a new iteration of the J-20 with WS-15.

The second option will likely take longer to optimise but together would provide a truly formidable combination.
Click to expand...

It is not as simple as sticking a new engine on a flanker. With the higher thrust, the entire plane must be re-designed to strengthen the body. It must go through extensive testing.
The question is, is this the best use of resources? I think it is better to just produce more J-20s with all this resource instead of upgrading a flanker with a new engine.
 
by78

by78

General
Deino said:
What an impressive image: :eek: Seven J-20s in formation flight .... would love to see them closer. via
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


View attachment 53592
Click to expand...


Another version of this.

(2048 x 1152)
48669762121_e4d546b326_o.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top