J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Interstellar said:

Isn't that the intriguing part? B variant is very likely reserved intentionally.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I find it also intriguing that from J-10B to J-10C are some discrepancies: They are all counted within continuing Batches (Batch 01 to Batch 05 are known) but only Batch 01 is called J-10B. Also, the differences between a J-10B to J-10C (AL-31FN) and J-10C (WS-10B) are similar since all differ in major equipment items (radar, engine) but the designation system is not that strictly following those differences.

Indeed intriguing.

PikeCowboy said:

lol I'm actually talking about something like the LRASM, doesn't seem too much of a revolution in manufacturing and I'm just tired of claims of 2 LRASM's sinking the LN and SD...

Click to expand...

LRASMs should be easy for Chinese industry to develop, given China's noted capabilities in missiles generally, and the existence of multiple stealth fighter and stealth bomber programmes.

So it's interesting that the Chinese military has decided to go with hypersonic missiles instead of building LRASMs.

And also telling that the US Navy is barely buying any LRASMs in the next 5 years, but is trying to catch up on hypersonic missiles.

You need to develop a thicker skin if you think you are right, and can justify why.

For the second time am image of the J-20 prototype no. 2013 was revealed with these unique AAM pylon adapters, but this time much clearer.

(Image by @秋秋Q30 at Weibo)

External loads are used, which are necessary for aerial combat training, for example. They cannot be carried in internal weapon bays.

AndrewS said:

LRASMs should be easy for Chinese industry to develop, given China's noted capabilities in missiles generally, and the existence of multiple stealth fighter and stealth bomber programmes.

So it's interesting that the Chinese military has decided to go with hypersonic missiles instead of building LRASMs.

And also telling that the US Navy is barely buying any LRASMs in the next 5 years, but is trying to catch up on hypersonic missiles.

You need to develop a thicker skin if you think you are right, and can justify why.

Click to expand...

I heard rumors Chinese are developing Jassm like a missile and also LRASM. But currently, probably it's not a priority.

ILikeChina said:

I heard rumors Chinese are developing Jassm like a missile and also LRASM. But currently, probably it's not a priority.

Click to expand...

Yes, China is probably developing JASSM now. It's the logical thing to do.

There are so many fixed land targets within the 1st Island Chain.
These would be within reach of JASSM launched from the Chinese mainland or from bombers.
And the vast majority of targets would not be covered by ground-based air defence, because the radar/infrared/visual horizon is only 30km.

So stealthy Chinese JASSMs could slip through undetected all the way to their targets, particularly since the skies overhead are going to be contested airspace.

Previously JASSMs weren't worth developing, because China still needed to secure air/maritime superiority over its coastal cities and waters.
But now they are looking firmly at power projection towards the 1st and 2nd Island Chains.

---

But the rationale for an LRASM version doesn't work as well, because it would need to add expensive guidance systems AND have to head directly towards the SAM systems of a defending warship.

Once the missiles are detected at the radar/infrared/visual horizon, LRASMs are slow, so the defending warship should have enough time to fire multiple defensive SAMs salvoes.

Anyway, back on topic.

Article suspected to be studies on post stall maneuvers with tvc for J-20.

siegecrossbow said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Article suspected to be studies on post stall maneuvers with tvc for J-20.

Click to expand...

Really nice paper, great read, thank you

but this ariticle may be more suited under other thread? Of course it related to j-20, but it use j-10 TVC as a study case for the whole time, and discuss about in general how to modeling and design the TVC in fighter jet as a whole

stannislas said:

Really nice paper, great read, thank you

but this ariticle may be more suited under other thread? Of course it related to j-20, but it use j-10 TVC as a study case for the whole time, and discuss about in general how to modeling and design the TVC in fighter jet as a whole

Click to expand...

The diagram they used is that of the J-20, hence the speculation that it is about J-20.

Deino said:

For the second time am image of the J-20 prototype no. 2013 was revealed with these unique AAM pylon adapters, but this time much clearer.

(Image by @秋秋Q30 at Weibo)

Click to expand...

Now we know what is going on. Tnx for sharing..