J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Andy1974]

That's what I find to be odd.

Given the geopolitical landscape of present and in the near future (at least towards the end of this decade), shouldn't Chengdu be maintaining the production rate of the J-20s?

Given that Chengdu is already capable of procuring 100x J-20s per year right now, that means the AECC can produce at least 200 WS-10Cs per year too. Simply put, production capacity isn't the issue here.

Coupled with the above geopolitical development, shouldn't Chengdu be able to maintain the similar J-20 production rates, while working in conjuction with AECC to gradually replace the WS-10C production lines with WS-15 production lines (and hence, J-20 production lines with J-20A production lines)?

Of course, there could be other factors at play, such as the introduction of J-35A(?) into PLAAF service which can alleviate the number of J-20s needed by the PLAAF; and/or the number of squadrons in the PLAAF deemed necessary for conversion to the J-20 declining over the years; and/or the anticipation of the 6DJ-XX and loyal wingman UCAVs that should enter service with the PLAAF by the 2030s - Any or all of which can certainly impact the scale of procurement of the J-20 by the PLAAF.

Perhaps what is happening is that the 100+ per year of the initial J20 model was the outlier, and was only necessary at this stage.

Perhaps the actual planned rate maybe be closer to 60 J-20A’s a year, for example, which would give 600 over a decade, which seems like a good number and timeline to me.

EDIT:

I have also been thinking about whether the J-20 with WS-10 and the J20-A with WS-15 could be produced alongside each other as a combination. The WS-15 engine is optimized for high altitude, so we can see a situation where J-20A is at 20km altitude and J-20 is at 10km. Working together.

In this case both J-20 and J-20A production could be 100+ a year, combined.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Maybe they'll have to slow down the production rate of J-20A because they can't produce WS-15 engines fast enough. I imagine it would take a long time for the WS-15 production rate to go from LRIP to 300+ per year.

it won't take much time..

let me tell you one thing, current scale of Chinese Aero Engine industry is unprecedented. Liming last year revenue was 22 Billion RMB. they are the primary contractor of WS-15. they also invested a lot money to build infrastructure and train talent. AECC regularly conduct seminar in all major universities to get top talent.

Liming/Xian currently producing couple of Hundreds WS-10 series engines annually. WS-20 production begun too. supply chain of all engines are interconnected.

as per AECC statement in March this year, we just need to sort out Alloy supply chain before going for WS-15 serial production.

within couple of years more engines will join the race, like WS-19 , CJ-1000 , AEP-500 , H-20 machine and more.

 

[Blitzo]

That's what I find to be odd.

Given the geopolitical landscape of present and in the near future (at least towards the end of this decade), shouldn't Chengdu be maintaining the production rate of the J-20s?

Given that Chengdu is already capable of procuring 100x J-20s per year right now, that means the AECC can produce at least 200 WS-10Cs per year too. Simply put, production capacity isn't the issue here.

Coupled with the above geopolitical development, shouldn't Chengdu be able to maintain the similar J-20 production rates, while working in conjuction with AECC to gradually replace the WS-10C production lines with WS-15 production lines (and hence, J-20 production lines with J-20A production lines)?

Of course, there could be other factors at play, such as the introduction of J-35A(?) into PLAAF service which can alleviate the number of J-20s needed by the PLAAF; and/or the number of squadrons in the PLAAF deemed necessary for conversion to the J-20 declining over the years; and/or the anticipation of the 6DJ-XX and loyal wingman UCAVs that should enter service with the PLAAF by the 2030s - Any or all of which can certainly impact the scale of procurement of the J-20 by the PLAAF.

Perhaps what is happening is that the 100+ per year of the initial J20 model was the outlier, and was only necessary at this stage.

Perhaps the actual planned rate maybe be closer to 60 J-20A’s a year, for example, which would give 600 over a decade, which seems like a good number and timeline to me.

EDIT:

I have also been thinking about whether the J-20 with WS-10 and the J20-A with WS-15 could be produced alongside each other as a combination. The WS-15 engine is optimized for high altitude, so we can see a situation where J-20A is at 20km altitude and J-20 is at 10km. Working together.

In this case both J-20 and J-20A production could be 100+ a year, combined.

The original statement is a bit weird, including the idea that the twin seat J-20 would be produced to begin with when previously it was described more as a tech demonstrator, and the idea of a J-35 variant (presumably land based for air force) being produced that would have J-20 production requirements be reduced.

After all if J-20A production was bottlenecked in the future for a little while with WS-15, it would just make more sense to continue building J-20s with WS-10s (or even J-20As with WS-10s) to continue the production rate.


Personally I don't like reading too much into vague one liners unless context and reasoning, so I don't think we need to spend too much time trying to consider all of the permutations of possible interpretations unless there's more information actually disclosed.

 

[banjex]

6DJ-XX (& 6DJ-XY)

 

[BoraTas]

- Even if thrust vectoring is equipped by the J-20, 2D-vectoring is more suitable than 3D-vectoring. The reason is being that the 3D-vectoring flight control is complex. The maneuverability gained in exchange for complexity and the less thrust loss caused by the circular nozzle is still essentially revolving around the "maneuvering is king" idea. Meanwhile, the 2D-vectoring rectangular nozzle's rearward stealth and smaller rear fuselage resistance (which brings longer range) meet the requirements of future air combat.

Time to remember the 2D-vectoring rectangular nozzle in Zhuhai 2022 from AECC. It seems at least some portion of the establishment advocates for such nozzles.

 

[phrozenflame]

What are the advantages of such nozzles (and ones like F22) vs the others (like F-35?)? Less IR?

 

[gelgoog]

Yes. Flat nozzles are supposed to be better at IR stealth. That is why the F-22 uses them.

The Russians are also working on flat nozzle technology.

 

[no_name]

But I thought disadvantage is that it would lose up to 15% thrust compared to traditional round nozzle.

 

[gelgoog]

Flat nozzle is also useless for 3D TVC. It has many disadvantages.

 

[iBBz]

Flat nozzle is also useless for 3D TVC. It has many disadvantages.

They are heavier and lack yawing capability, but they are ideal for stealth. F-22s use them for micro pitch adjustments during cruising without moving any control surfaces to maintain geometrical fidelity and keep RCS as low as possible. It also looks like they have heatsinking channels built into them? Maybe because they are flat and easier to machine fins into? Just a guess. Here's some photos on the F-22 and the Su-27UB LL-UV(PS) showing what I'm talking about. The Su-27 even appears to have intakes on the top and bottom of the nozzles. Please feel free to correct me if you know what these are for.