J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
KFX

KFX

New Member
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
The diagram they used is that of the J-20, hence the speculation that it is about J-20.
Click to expand...
At Zhuhai in 2018 the J-20 was fairly conservative, whereas the star of the show was J-10TVC. My sense is that TVC on J-20 would really help bring around the nose a lot faster in turns. Is it possible that WS-15, which I believe has yet to appear on the J-20, will enter service with TVC?
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
KFX said:
At Zhuhai in 2018 the J-20 was fairly conservative, whereas the star of the show was J-10TVC. My sense is that TVC on J-20 would really help bring around the nose a lot faster in turns. Is it possible that WS-15, which I believe has yet to appear on the J-20, will enter service with TVC?
Click to expand...

Given the 2025 WS-15 estimates, I doubt PLAAF will bother with TVC versions of WS-10 for the J-20. As far as we're aware, TVC lowers the effective thrust. Speed and energy management is far more important to something like a J-20's role than maneuverability. WS-15 may or may not incorporate TVC as soon as it reaches service but the intention is believed to eventually give the J-20 TVC with the WS-15 engines. A lower priority than pure thrust performance due to the nature of its utility for PLAAF. FCS incorporating TVC mechanisms similar to what's been decided for WS-10's TVC variant is work that can and should be started asap.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
ougoah said:
Given the 2025 WS-15 estimates, I doubt PLAAF will bother with TVC versions of WS-10 for the J-20. As far as we're aware, TVC lowers the effective thrust. Speed and energy management is far more important to something like a J-20's role than maneuverability. WS-15 may or may not incorporate TVC as soon as it reaches service but the intention is believed to eventually give the J-20 TVC with the WS-15 engines. A lower priority than pure thrust performance due to the nature of its utility for PLAAF. FCS incorporating TVC mechanisms similar to what's been decided for WS-10's TVC variant is work that can and should be started asap.
Click to expand...
If the J-20 is intended for TVC then they will probably want to at least install WS-10s with TVC on some J-20 test planes to get a head start on the FCS and engine control development rather than wait for a TVC version of the WS-15 to be ready.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
latenlazy said:
If the J-20 is intended for TVC then they will probably want to at least install WS-10s with TVC on some J-20 test planes to get a head start on the FCS and engine control development rather than wait for a TVC version of the WS-15 to be ready.
Click to expand...

Possibly one for some testing. But what value is there in diminishing the overall available thrust for WS-10 powered J-20s in the interim? They'll do what is necessary to commence FCS work. The models developed can be scaled according to WS-15 specifics. For the purposes of creating a working FCS for TVC enabled J-20, there is no point in introducing WS-10TVC into J-20 units for service. One or two are enough for testing work required to fast track WS-15TVC when it is ready beyond 2025.
 
by78

by78

General
An old image. A prototype J-20 with external pylons.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

49958143548_62adfc73e4_k.jpg
 
B

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
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...
There seems to be a lot more to the Lrasm than meets the eye.
One might think of it simply as a navalised Jassm, and that wouldn't be entirely wrong, considering propulsion, initial guidance and warhead. However, most of the development has gone to refining and augmenting the sensors and software already existing in Jassm platform. It seems to have entirely reworked flight planning system, much higher reliance on node network than master-slave information system. It may also include various ECCM for terminal phase since sensor disruption and degradation has been factored in the design early on. A lot of DoD rdt&e account 6.3/6.4 money was spent on this program. I wouldn't be surprised if tech certified via this program permeates into other tech such as Mald etc.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Bhurki said:
There seems to be a lot more to the Lrasm than meets the eye.
One might think of it simply as a navalised Jassm, and that wouldn't be entirely wrong, considering propulsion, initial guidance and warhead. However, most of the development has gone to refining and augmenting the sensors and software already existing in Jassm platform. It seems to have entirely reworked flight planning system, much higher reliance on node network than master-slave information system. It may also include various ECCM for terminal phase since sensor disruption and degradation has been factored in the design early on. A lot of DoD rdt&e account 6.3/6.4 money was spent on this program. I wouldn't be surprised if tech certified via this program permeates into other tech such as Mald etc.
Click to expand...

And how is this relevant to the fact that the US Navy is only buying 200 LRASMs over the next 5 years?

Surely if the LRASM was that amazing, they would be buying more?
 
B

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
And how is this relevant to the fact that the US Navy is only buying 200 LRASMs over the next 5 years?

Surely if the LRASM was that amazing, they would be buying more?
Click to expand...
Cautious approach towards newer unfielded tech always exists in the earlier stages on a program. The fact is, it is still undergoing the evaluation phase, and so the tactics to employ and integrate it into the kill chain will still take time and more money.
Thats why jassm will cost $1.1M next year while Lrasm will still cost over $3M.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top