J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Blitzo]

@Bltizo: you should respond to the 300 km assumption, though. There's a variety of defense reports that claim the PL-12's successor, i.e, the PL-15, has a 300 km range. I'm not sure how sanitized they are, but the underlying claim is that the PL-15 incorporates a dual-pulse rocket motor which is more advanced than conventional rocket motors used by most countries. These are actually included in ESSM and advanced American surface or ship to air missiles.

Please click the reply button in future, so that a quote is automatically formed and so the person you're replying to will be able to receive a notification. Tagging a member doesn't always bring up a notification, like in this case.

As for 300km -- I believe the 300km range was listed in regards to the PL-X rather than the PL-15, specifically in regards to PL-X's low estimate range.

As to the rest, we've gone over the E-2D and the interception mission for the J-20 a thousand times. But what matters is the 300 km claim. Did CCTV describe the PL-X as the 300 km missile, as Chinese television did report a 300 km missile?

I feel like every time it is brought up, my response is more along the lines of saying "there are too many assumptions that needs to be worked out before a scenario can be sensibly discussed" rather than actually going through the scenario seriously on my part...

I personally am not aware of any CCTV report about the range of any missile.


The PL-X range of "300km" comes from screenshots of a paper that emerged last year right around when images of PL-X first leaked. The paper discussed parameters of a new type of long range A2A missile, including giving a range of ">300km".

EDIT: going back to a thread from last year, there was this article that came out about the time PL-X pictures emerged...
of course state media often gets things wrong, and they're just citing a random "military expert" in this case, but given PL-X's size and what its max range is "at least 300km" an actual maximum range of 400km is quite reasonable.

In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about the exact number. Point is, it's likely to be in the hundreds.

PLA may have new air-to-air missile

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Source
China Daily
Editor
Dong Zhaohui

Time
2017-01-26

AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google+Share to LinkedInShare to WeChatShare to More
A
+
-

A J-10 fighter jet soars over the sky for a sortie during the "Red Sword-2016" systemic confrontation training exercise held by the Chinese PLA Air Force in deep desert on Nov. 10, 2016. The "Red Sword-2016", involving various arms of services from the Air Force such as aviation, ground-to-air missile, radar, electronic countermeasure troops, aimed to beef up the troops' systematic combat capabilities. It is also one of the four key training brands of the PLA Air Force, along with the "Golden Dart", "Golden Helmet" and "Blue Shield". (81.cn/ Yang Jun)

An image released online by the Chinese Air Force has led to speculation that the military is testing a beyond-visual-range, air-to-air missile in combat drills.

The photo, recently uploaded to the People's Liberation Army website, shows a J-11B twin-engine fighter jet carrying a large missile - it stretches about one-fourth of the length of the 22-meter-long aircraft - during Red Sword 2016, an aerial warfare exercise over a northwestern desert in November.

Nearly 100 aircraft as well as air defense and electronic countermeasure units from two theater commands participated in the exercise, the Air Force said.

It comes after photographs circulated on weapons websites late last year of a Chinese J-16 strike fighter carrying a nearly identical missile.

A spokesman for the Air Force was unavailable for comment on Wednesday, and no official introduction of the potential new weapon has been disclosed by the PLA or defense contractors. However, its appearance has attracted attention from military enthusiasts, many of whom say such a missile would boost the Air Force's combat capabilities.

Chinese fighter jets currently use the PL-11 and PL-12 missiles to attack long-distance targets, but their maximum ranges are shorter than 100 kilometers.

Fu Qianshao, an equipment researcher with the PLA Air Force, said on Tuesday that he believes China has developed a new missile that can hit high-value targets such as early-warning planes and aerial refueling aircraft, which stay far from conflict zones.

Most air-to-air missiles in service around the world have a maximum range of around 100 km, while a handful of new types propelled by ramjets can reach 200 km, he said. However, all of them are unsuitable for combating early-warning planes because of their short ranges.

Moreover, he added, long-range ground-to-air missiles are restricted by their fixed deployment when dealing with planes far away.

"The best solution to this problem I can figure out is to send a super-maneuverable fighter jet with very-long-range missiles to destroy those high-value targets, which are 'eyes' of enemy jets," Fu said. "So the successful development of this potential new missile would be a major breakthrough in the Air Force's weapons upgrade."

He said the missile could have a maximum range of 400 km, farther than any air-to-air missiles used by Western air forces. He added that based on his experience, an ultralong-range missile would enter the the stratosphere - at an altitude of 20 to 50 km - and continue its flight there until it detects its target and dives to strike.

In addition, its size would enable it to be equipped with a large, cutting-edge guidance radar to detect targets. All of these capabilities would allow it to deal with large planes and stealth jets, Fu added.

Wang Ya'nan, editor-in-chief of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, said he has been unable to verify the missile in the PLA picture. However, he suggested that the superlong range of such a missile would mean it could use satellites to relay data and control signals.

The United States' longest-range air-to-air missile is the AIM-120D, which has an operational range of up to 200 km. Russia also has the R-37 and K-100 air-to-air missiles, which their designers say have operational ranges of up to 400 km.

By Zhao Lei | China Daily

 

[latenlazy]

Okay, finally got my laptop with photoshop back. I straightened out both the Flanker and J-20 in the picture to the best of my abilities. For the Flanker I got 204 pixels for the length and 136 pixels for the wingspan (I included the wingtip pylons...wasn't sure whether the Flanker's wingspan should include that, but I figure it should since it's a staple of the design). For the J-20 I got 193 pixels for the length and 120 pixels for the wingspan. That makes the J-20 about 20.7~20.8 meters long, with a wingspan of just roughly 13 meters. I'll note though that if you try to retroactively reconstruct the lengths of the Flanker and J-20 using the wingspan estimates you will get 22.05 meters in length for the Flanker and 20.9 meters in length for the J-20. Do this exercise in reverse, and you get a wingspan of 14.62 meters for the Flanker and 12.9 meters for the J-20. At first I thought this was distortion, but more likely than not it's actually measurement error from the the low pixel count from the images. Every pixel contributes about 0.1 meters of error. Without higher quality pics this is about as close as we can get, I think.

I also tried to measure the angle of the J-20's leading and trailing edge sweeps. The leading edge seems to be about 48 degrees, though with the distortion and pixelation it was kind of hard to tell. My measurements varied between 47 degrees and 49 degrees for the three different planes in the original picture, so I figure all things considered with perspective and camera tilt the actual figure would probably be squarely in the middle. The same problems applied to the trailing edge, though I arrived at 12 degrees.

Using the sweep angles, we can use an alternative approach to calculating wing area other than the trapezoidal area method which might incur fewer measurement errors. This method breaks the reference wing into three sections—an isosceles triangle with the wingspan length as the base and equal opposite angles of the leading edge sweep (48 degrees), a long rectangle with the width of the wingspan and the height of the wingtip length, and another isosceles triangle with the the wingspan length as the base and equal opposite angles of the trailing edge (12 degrees).

When I tried the trapezoidal method I got a midchord length of 9.95 meters and a wingtip length of 1.6 meters. That equals an wing area of 75 m^2. Using the alternative method I'm suggesting, I got 46.92+8.98+20.8, which adds up to 76.7 m^2. The difference isn't big, but I think if we know the wingspan and the wingtip length we can save ourselves the trouble of trying to estimate yet another length since the wing sweep angles give us constants to work with.

 

[FORBIN]

The nice thing about longer length is that it suggests the bay length is 4.5 meters, by my estimate. That's fairly long, and might actually be long enough to fit Chinese long-range missiles.

I'd like to see if you're willing to help clear up some confusion on the PL-15, by the way. There's pictures going around claiming that the J-10C's been sporting a PL-15, but the missile the J-10C is carrying is about 4 meters long, instead of 6 meters long. The PL-15, according to CDF, used to be the designation for a cropped version of the PL-12, but the PL-15 seems to be getting confused with the other PL-15, which is purported to have between 300 and 400 km of range.

What's going on with the short PL-15? Is this in fact a missile with enhanced range, or is it just the cropped PL-15?

I have also see 4.5 m... but have we size for PL-15 ? i have calculate with this pic i found 4.9 m !
diam 0.27 body, 0,63 cm fins

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Huitong say sure 4 PL-15 in J-20 weapons bay so ...
Some have please ?

@Bltizo: you should respond to the 300 km assumption, though. There's a variety of defense reports that claim the PL-12's successor, i.e, the PL-15, has a 300 km range. I'm not sure how sanitized they are, but the underlying claim is that the PL-15 incorporates a dual-pulse rocket motor which is more advanced than conventional rocket motors used by most countries. These are actually included in ESSM and advanced American surface or ship to air missiles.

As to the rest, we've gone over the E-2D and the interception mission for the J-20 a thousand times. But what matters is the 300 km claim. Did CCTV describe the PL-X as the 300 km missile, as Chinese television did report a 300 km missile?

Huitong say 200 km too new and Chinese impossible right now you have exact range
Edit : For PL-15 ofc

 

[FORBIN]

Guys ... either You concentrate on the J-20 or You simply shut up !

If I take a look at the discussion where again the usual suspects prefer to eyeball instead of calculating, where they avoid each and every single question with a clear answer and I again have to clean about 12 pages of BS. That's TROLLING !

Are You nuts???
It's really annoying what's recently going on here ...

Deino


@WebMaster PLEASE give us finally the new mods and also the power to do something.

A new round have begin always the same

 

[Jura The idiot]

We used to have the PL-15 and PL-21 designations. That said, the PL-15 gets attributed 300 km range, which gets me wondering: are they talking about PL-15 or PL-21/PL-X? Attributing the PL-15 300 km range would also help clear up some confusion: there's also reports of a 400 km missile, so the PL-15 would be the 300 km missile and the 400 km missile.

With the dual pulse motor, the PL-15's range would be plausible. The AIM-120D never received the asked-for dual pulse motor, and it maxes out at around 180 km.

noticed Yesterday at 8:42 PM

this is interesting:
New long-range missile project emerges in US budget

02 November, 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

probably not a vaporware

If you assume 800 km range on the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and assume an L-Band RCS of -20 dBsm, the J-20 would be detected at 252 km by the AEW&C. With 1200 km range, it would require a 380 km missile to hit the AEW&C on detection.

With the AEW&C gone, the J-20s can safely jam F-35 AESA and force it down to EODAS. Assume EODAS, beyond the EOTS, is not very long range. Then the J-20 can snipe the F-35 from above and at subsonic speeds at leisure using its own height advantage and EOTS to see the F-35 when the F-35 can't see it.

This type of tactic would require a type of 3D formation with J-20s operating both on high and low altitutdes, with low-altitide J-20s tasked to counter the AEW&C and high-altitude J-20s tasked to counter the F-35s. At maximum range, it would take the PL-15 about 4 minutes to impact the AEW&C, more if the AEW&C attempts to maneuver out of the PL-15's range and if the goal simply becomes to jam the F-35.

It'd be an interesting game; the AEW&C could likely counterjam the J-20s given its higher output power, but the J-20s would be more numerous.

I like to read your scenarios (am unable to contribute though LOL)

 

[Jura The idiot]

... an wing area of 75 m^2. ...

let me see ... wow so it's almost the same as for the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and almost twice bigger than for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

After all posts i have see ! incredible !!!

Bettter laugh

I thought the nozzle appeared short because they were deflected downwards due to TVC. But that is still no excuse. This is a quadruple face-palm . The camo and the canopy should have been the give away .

I have also see 4.5 m... but have we size for PL-15 ? i have calculate with this pic i found 4.9 m !
diam 0.27 body, 0,63 cm fins

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Huitong say sure 4 PL-15 in J-20 weapons bay so ...
Some have please ?


Huitong say 200 km too new and Chinese impossible right now you have exact range
Edit : For PL-15 ofc

And quintuple for me haha

 

[delft]

This is IMO the main reason for such reports.

In other words it's propaganda.

 

[plawolf]

Okay, finally got my laptop with photoshop back. I straightened out both the Flanker and J-20 in the picture to the best of my abilities. For the Flanker I got 204 pixels for the length and 136 pixels for the wingspan (I included the wingtip pylons...wasn't sure whether the Flanker's wingspan should include that, but I figure it should since it's a staple of the design). For the J-20 I got 193 pixels for the length and 120 pixels for the wingspan. That makes the J-20 about 20.7~20.8 meters long, with a wingspan of just roughly 13 meters. I'll note though that if you try to retroactively reconstruct the lengths of the Flanker and J-20 using the wingspan estimates you will get 22.05 meters in length for the Flanker and 20.9 meters in length for the J-20. Do this exercise in reverse, and you get a wingspan of 14.62 meters for the Flanker and 12.9 meters for the J-20. At first I thought this was distortion, but more likely than not it's actually measurement error from the the low pixel count from the images. Every pixel contributes about 0.1 meters of error. Without higher quality pics this is about as close as we can get, I think.

I also tried to measure the angle of the J-20's leading and trailing edge sweeps. The leading edge seems to be about 48 degrees, though with the distortion and pixelation it was kind of hard to tell. My measurements varied between 47 degrees and 49 degrees for the three different planes in the original picture, so I figure all things considered with perspective and camera tilt the actual figure would probably be squarely in the middle. The same problems applied to the trailing edge, though I arrived at 12 degrees.

Using the sweep angles, we can use an alternative approach to calculating wing area other than the trapezoidal area method which might incur fewer measurement errors. This method breaks the reference wing into three sections—an isosceles triangle with the wingspan length as the base and equal opposite angles of the leading edge sweep (48 degrees), a long rectangle with the width of the wingspan and the height of the wingtip length, and another isosceles triangle with the the wingspan length as the base and equal opposite angles of the trailing edge (12 degrees).

When I tried the trapezoidal method I got a midchord length of 9.95 meters and a wingtip length of 1.6 meters. That equals an wing area of 75 m^2. Using the alternative method I'm suggesting, I got 46.92+8.98+20.8, which adds up to 76.7 m^2. The difference isn't big, but I think if we know the wingspan and the wingtip length we can save ourselves the trouble of trying to estimate yet another length since the wing sweep angles give us constants to work with.

The canards also add lift, so if their area is added, you get an even bigger effective wing area.

 

[latenlazy]

The canards also add lift, so if their area is added, you get an even bigger effective wing area.

Not how this works I'm afraid. As I said to b787 (though you aren't making the asinine point he was) by this logic the entire airplane is wing area, since the entire surface of the plane contributes to lift. Either way don't put *too* much into wing area estimates. It's a caveman's short hand for the actual engineering and science that goes into designing a plane.