J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[00rinsak]

The J-20s (as in all variants) were most definitely flying with them on.

On this topic, do we know if the J-20's ones are retractable too?

I was looking back at my photos the other night and was thinking they may be (especially since the screws etc. seem to fit in with the others on the fuselage, & there doesn't seem to be a gap between the top of the lens and the fuselage).

I guess I could have just waited for two more weeks until photos from the Static display at Changchun circulate online, but there's no harm in asking ‍

 

[ougoah]

The J-20s (as in all variants) were most definitely flying with them on.

Apologies for the bad quality - I've only got these photos with horrid edits/no detail on my phone but the luneberg lenses were definitely on there.


View attachment 160299View attachment 160300

Oh I assumed that wasn't a LL, being used to the older LL deployed on J-20s of the past.

 

[siegecrossbow]

One interesting about luneburg is that Yankeesama mentioned that they used a luneburg lens on the J-20 that was detachable in flight. Guess that it was not as economical as retractable luneburg and was replaced later on.

 

[TF2001]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1964221154002125095

so I listened to the video here where the reporter specifically said jamming as one of the main functionalities of J-20S next to C2. So this seems to point to our theory that in MUMT, the controlling aircraft will be further back. I would think if it is doing jamming, then that would give off certain amount of emissions even with the most advanced LPI tech. So in order to not expose it, then there has to be CCAs & other fighter jet in front.

Also, it does raise the possibility of a EW aircraft based on J-20S. The main advantage over J-16D is its design from day 1 to have greater power generation and more interior space (we could swap out IWB space for hosting electronical equipment).

Not sure if noticed by anyone yet, but the intakes are different, seems to be a separation layer now in addition to the DSI.

 

[Deino]

Not sure if noticed by anyone yet, but the intakes are different, seems to be a separation layer now in addition to the DSI.

Pardon, but on both images barely any details are visible that could not also or IMO much easier be explained by a different colour

 

[TF2001]

Pardon, but on both images barely any details are visible that could not also or IMO much easier be explained by a different colour

I’m not sure if I see that, especially the second image where the immediate darkening before the lighter band makes it seem very much like there is a gap there

 

[TF2001]

I’ll concede that it doesn’t really make sense to have a separation layer and a DSI at the same time, however.

 

[Deino]

I’m not sure if I see that, especially the second image where the immediate darkening before the lighter band makes it seem very much like there is a gap there

IMO just colour ...

 

[gelgoog]

I don't think my numbers have been that influential, that said my personal range is between 300 to over 400 as of right now.

The estimate range is quite wide simply because we just don't have many good updates these days whether it's for production serials or for new units.

I would not be surprised if the numbers of yearly produced fighters decrease over the next couple of years as production switches to the new models.

 

[Deino]

I would not be surprised if the numbers of yearly produced fighters decrease over the next couple of years as production switches to the new models.

Well, and would better rephrase it to:

„I would not be surprised if the numbers of yearly produced fighters decreased over the last two years as production switched to the new models“ and is now being increased again to the high level we saw two years ago, which also fits to the lower number of newly confirmed units.