J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[iBBz]

Then where is the new airframe? I'll believe it when I see it. If they could, why didn't they?

I'll believe that when I see news from LM or DoD reports. They're most likely gonna be related to cost overruns though.

See, this is a great example of what fanboyism does. This part of the discussion was regarding @tphuang making the claim that the F-22 is ancient and new subsystems couldn't possibly fit inside of it, but then we know the J-20A needed a new airframe, which we can tell by the fact that it has a different hump behind the cockpit and a different nose and possibly other things, in order to fit in the new engine and subsystems that couldn't fit inside the older variants, so I was explaining to @tphuang that if he isn't willing to apply the same principle to the F-22, then his analysis is biased, because we know the F-22 airframe can be redesigned to fit in new subsystems as it happens to other aircraft of different sizes and ages all the time. Because you didn't read the discussion from the beginning, you missed the point entirely and your replies ended up being about entirely different subjects. Good job letting your emotions get the best of you.

Regarding the WS-10C and it's thrust rating, come back and talk to me when you have real numbers that aren't based on US engine thrust ratings. Until I see one PLA official confirming the thrust of that engine, I will continue to call the current available numbers guesswork, and rightfully so.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

See, this is a great example of what fanboyism does.

Mm hmm, predicting what would happen in a hypothetical scenario (it ain't happening for you buddy) based on recent US MIC antics is now fanboyism. Would be funny if it ain't so sad.

This part of the discussion was regarding @tphuang making the claim that the F-22 is ancient

Is he wrong?

and new subsystems couldn't possibly fit inside of it

New subsystems surely can. I think he said more in a "competitive subsystems under reasonable costs" manner which in an 2025 context "reasonable costs" are basically impossible.

but then we know the J-20A needed a new airframe

A largely identical airframe, you mean. The only significant structural difference minus the engines is the dorsal hump, and that isn't because the new subsystems need it. The main reason is drag reduction and being able to fit more/larger stuff in is the byproduct, not the main driving factor. And I can tell you adding a dorsal hump is turning my palm compared to adding a few centimetres to the airframe length.

if he isn't willing to apply the same principle to the F-22, then his analysis is biased, because we know the F-22 airframe can be redesigned to fit in new subsystems as it happens to other aircraft of different sizes and ages all the time.

Actually, I think it's pretty fair, since both scenarios are not the same. Since the J-20 already has running and mature production lines, it's the matter of altering them. Contrarily, the F-22 isn't in active production. You're modifying existing birds without a robust supply line to support it. Obviously it costs magnitudes more and requires much more effort.

And the F-22 will be fitted with new subsystems with the MLU, just not as comprehensively or neatly as the J-20A. They're different situations requiring different principles, so is the B-52 situation.

Speaking of which, I don't think the B-52 serves as a good argument here. The Raptor has a clear replacement in mind, the NGAD. The B-52 is another thing, plus it's magnitudes less tech-intensive than a stealth fighter. I don't think you can directly apply it to the F-22.

you missed the point entirely and your replies ended up being about entirely different subjects. Good job letting your emotions get the best of you.

You cannot be serious lmao. Go on, what are the different subjects? They better be valid and/or relevant: wait, most of your original points aren't, as I've illustrated.

The only emotion from me here is mild amusement.

Regarding the WS-10C and it's thrust rating, come back and talk to me when you have real numbers that aren't based on US engine thrust ratings. Until I see one PLA official confirming the thrust of that engine, I will continue to call the current available numbers guesswork, and rightfully so.

Throwing the entire purpose of PLA watching and OSINTing out the window. Desperate and bold - I like it. Shame it amounts to nothing. You're half-right. Emotions are getting me - you have me on the floor laughing.

 

[tphuang]

I'll believe that when I see a spec sheet and photo/video evidence of the J-20A in service painted, numbered, and produced in numbers.

Lockheed could redesign the airframe to make space for this equipment. We've seen other aircraft take this route in order to make way for upgrades, such as the Mig-35 and the flanker series. You just made this example with the new airframe of the J-20A, so why can't you apply the same principle to the F-22?

As I explained before, they likely decided a new aircraft is the right direction to take. All these subsystems of the F-35 are begging for a larger twin engine airframe to set them free.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

feel free to read this carefully on just why it's hard to do interior changes for even F-35

According to Milas, adapting the cooling system capacity to address the needs of the Block 4 requirement is straightforward. “What we could do to get up to the 47 kW is put on a more powerful motor and some more sturdy valves and push the PAO fluid through a little bit faster,” he says.

Jumping to a 62-kW capacity system, however, will require more extensive changes, he notes. “If you want to jump to 62 kW of cooling, you’re not able to do it with the current [diameter] of plumbing,” Milas says. “You’ve only got a certain diameter [of tube], so if you want more heat dissipation off of those, you need more fluid to carry the heat and to take it to the heat exchangers.”

The PAO tubes pass through the F-35’s drilled holes in the internal bulkheads and frames. If the diameter of the tubes increases, the holes in each of the bulkheads and frames also would have to be enlarged, Milas says. “We start making the holes bigger—a quarter-inch—but it adds up and makes a big difference from a structural loads [issue],” he added.

And that's for practically a new variant and new production unit. And your proposal is to somehow overhaul an out of production aircraft to do the same.

The J-20 entered service with the AL-31F and a non-serrated nozzle, a far cry from a 5th generation fighter. Neither are mature, but the F135 is a mature engine and more official info about it and the F-35 is released. You can find it's spec sheets on even Lockheed's website. If you search for the J-20 specs, each website will contradict the one before it.

so by that logic, J-10C is also not mature, because you won't get the official specs for it.

No one is saying the field isn't moving forward fast or that China is moving slowly, but your statements indirectly imply that the US is not moving forward, which I find very problematic, lacks objectivity, and cannot be backed up with real tangible evidence since we have very little info released by China's MIC regarding their product.

We in fact do have a lot of information on China's MIC on this. in fact, I read all the earnings report and investor report from the company that produces TR modules for PLA aircraft. I do advise you read up on radar thread on this topic and maybe the semi thread.

And coincidentally, they also supply GaN MMIC for Chinese satellites and 5G base stations.
And I in fact do follow the Chinese 4th gen semiconductor material very closely.

It is not my problem that F-22 was developed at a time when GaN was not in production anywhere and they didn't plan for the cooling requirement needed for it.

It is also not my problem that US MIC was arrogant in the early 2000s and designed an all encompassing aircraft in F-35 that didn't have a lot of room for expanded power generation and put GaA radars on all its modern aircraft.

See, this is a great example of what fanboyism does. This part of the discussion was regarding @tphuang making the claim that the F-22 is ancient and new subsystems couldn't possibly fit inside of it, but then we know the J-20A needed a new airframe, which we can tell by the fact that it has a different hump behind the cockpit and a different nose and possibly other things, in order to fit in the new engine and subsystems that couldn't fit inside the older variants, so I was explaining to @tphuang that if he isn't willing to apply the same principle to the F-22, then his analysis is biased, because we know the F-22 airframe can be redesigned to fit in new subsystems as it happens to other aircraft of different sizes and ages all the time. Because you didn't read the discussion from the beginning, you missed the point entirely and your replies ended up being about entirely different subjects. Good job letting your emotions get the best of you.

We have the USAF telling us that F-22 Block 20 isn't competitive vs J-20. And I'm explaining to people why.

You seem to not understand that J-20 is a still in production aircraft and that new variants are being developed for that reason. Same logic why F-35 is getting new variant.

F-22 is an out of production aircraft. As such, you cannot design new variants. You have to put the changes onto existing airframes. And the existing airframes were never designed to handle this level of cooling.

 

[Ringsword]

Looking at J-20 now actually has the same feeling as looking at J-10C now.

Why not as they both come from the same "father and mother" and many cousins will share the same family attractive family resemblance