J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
Yang Wei did mention that a whole family of them will emerge. Not surprised if they have like 8 different variants.
Click to expand...

Even already, in terms of J-20 variants that have seen production or likely to see production, we have:
- original J-20A powered by Al-31
- current J-20A powered by WS-10s
(and both of these have seen iterative improvements between batches)
- J-20AS powered by WS-10s
- "J-20B" whose production version could be powered by either WS-15, or WS-10 AND WS-15 (which thus could count for two separate variants itself)

I wouldn't be surprised if a WS-15 powered "J-20BS" emerges in the future..


And chances are J-20AS and J-20B and so on will all have their own iterative improvements between batches as well because that's the way the PLA is approaching this program and their recent fighter development.


For the purposes of what we're all most interested in, I think the focus would be on the relationship between "J-20B's" commencement of production and WS-15s as its powerplant.



latenlazy said:
Yeah I know but I’m going to out on a limb on this one and be the guy insisting “No this time is different!” You can clown me afterwards if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...

A story as old as time -- PLA watchers being in an abusive relationship with engine development milestones.
 
M

minusone

Junior Member
Registered Member
1671855711682.png

So someone came out with an analysis that this might be modification for J20T, because unlike the original design, the EODAS placement has been changed from nose (widest field coverage) to side inlet (same as J20s), indicating that this variant is not meant for striking role. Could be J20T single seater variant.

Also, the transonic drag improvisation is a sus, don't read too much into it.

1671856486628.png

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
Schwerter_

Schwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
minusone said:
View attachment 103823

So someone came out with an analysis that this might be modification for J20T, because unlike the original design, the EODAS placement has been changed from nose (widest field coverage) to side inlet (same as J20s), indicating that this variant is not meant for striking role. Could be J20T single seater variant.

Also, the transonic drag improvisation is a sus, don't read too much into it.

View attachment 103826

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
Personal suggestion is to stop treating Tieba as a reliable source, it’s been turning into more and more of a cesspool in the past years and military genres seems to have suffered the most.

For example, again from that J35 paper and again with the hump, it reduces drag primarily by filling up a low-pressure region behind the cockpit and area rule optimization wasn’t even mentioned in that paper, so I have no idea why the people in that screenshot are referring to the hump on the J35 as if it is an addition for better enforcement of the area rule. If the source above is not even getting basic facts straight I have difficulties believing whatever conclusions they’re making, for example if I understand correctly that thread proposes that this may be a “single seat J-20 electronic warfare variant” which doesn’t really make sense to me.
Still, interesting that the EODAS and side sensor placements are different from previous single-seaters and more in line with J-20B. I wonder if that means it’s not designed for close air combat as that thread suggests, or if the EODAS still covers the sides, just moved to a different location that we haven’t seen yet. My personal guess is that this is less of a shift in role, and more of a new internal parts arrangement scheme that’s implemented on both the twin-seater and this new prototype.
 
Last edited:
M

minusone

Junior Member
Registered Member
Scchwerter_ said:
Personal suggestion is to stop treating Tieba as a reliable source, it’s been turning into more and more of a cesspool in the past years and military genres seems to have suffered the most.

For example, again from that J35 paper and again with the hump, it reduces drag primarily by filling up a low-pressure region behind the cockpit and area rule optimization wasn’t even mentioned in that paper, so I have no idea why the people in that screenshot are referring to the hump on the J35 as if it is an addition for better enforcement of the area rule. If the source above is not even getting basic facts straight I have difficulties believing whatever conclusions they’re making, for example if I understand correctly that thread proposes that this may be a “single seat J-20 electronic warfare variant” which doesn’t really make sense to me.
Still, interesting that the EODAS and side sensor placements are different from previous single-seaters and more in line with J-20B. I wonder if that means it’s not designed for close air combat as that thread suggests, or if the EODAS still covers the sides, just moved to a different location that we haven’t seen yet. My personal guess is that this is less of a shift in role, and more of a new internal parts arrangement scheme that’s implemented on both the twin-seater and this new prototype.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on the hump part? From my understanding as layman, he was referring to drag reduction during transonic speed as per area rule, which claims drag reduction can only be made by smooth design from front to rear (F35). A simple design by adding hump which resulted in obvious kink at the end of it will not reduce any drag.
 
Schwerter_

Schwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
minusone said:
Can you elaborate on the hump part? From my understanding as layman, he was referring to drag reduction during transonic speed as per area rule, which claims drag reduction can only be made by smooth design from front to rear (F35). A simple design by adding hump which resulted in obvious kink at the end of it will not reduce any drag.
Click to expand...
I think what the screenshot is claiming (there are a few different people in that screenshot so this may not be a representation of what they all think) that J35’s added hump only worked because it has enlarged wings and a cockpit that’s higher than previous FC-31 variants, thus the area rule distribution is changed from what fc31 originally had, and a larger hump is therefore needed to ensure a good implementation of the area rule. (Which from my understanding of the paper is not necessarily the primary reason for that enlarged hump)
 
M

minusone

Junior Member
Registered Member
Scchwerter_ said:
I think what the screenshot is claiming (there are a few different people in that screenshot so this may not be a representation of what they all think) that J35’s added hump only worked because it has enlarged wings and a cockpit that’s higher than previous FC-31 variants, thus the area rule distribution is changed from what fc31 originally had, and a larger hump is therefore needed to ensure a good implementation of the area rule. (Which from my understanding of the paper is not necessarily the primary reason for that enlarged hump)
Click to expand...

I think their main point is to rebuke the claim on added hump on j20B/C is for transonic drag reduction. And by narrowing the purpose of the added hump (more fuel/room for electronic devices) and EODAS re-placement, they postulate that this variant might be for electronic warfare. Or it could be that 2051 is meant to test out various improvisation for different variants?
 
Schwerter_

Schwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
minusone said:
I think their main point is to rebuke the claim on added hump on j20B/C is for transonic drag reduction. And by narrowing the purpose of the added hump (more fuel/room for electronic devices) and EODAS re-placement, they postulate that this variant might be for electronic warfare. Or it could be that 2051 is meant to test out various improvisation for different variants?
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s essentially what they’re saying. I don’t think they have very much proof for what they’re (seemingly very confidently) claiming or that they have gotten their arguments sorted out though.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
minusone said:
I think their main point is to rebuke the claim on added hump on j20B/C is for transonic drag reduction. And by narrowing the purpose of the added hump (more fuel/room for electronic devices) and EODAS re-placement, they postulate that this variant might be for electronic warfare. Or it could be that 2051 is meant to test out various improvisation for different variants?
Click to expand...
Creating more room in the fuselage may not be mutually exclusive from transonic drag optimization.

I’m not persuaded that the removal of the EODAS window from the nose is a sign of optimization for a non standard role. It could simply be the case that that window position was redundant in that specific location for meaningful field of view for the sensor and they get better or more meaningful field of view coverage moving the window further aft. These kinds of adjustments do happen sometimes after collecting feedback from real world use.
 
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
minusone said:
I think their main point is to rebuke the claim on added hump on j20B/C is for transonic drag reduction. And by narrowing the purpose of the added hump (more fuel/room for electronic devices) and EODAS re-placement, they postulate that this variant might be for electronic warfare. Or it could be that 2051 is meant to test out various improvisation for different variants?
Click to expand...

An equally reasonable and arguably more logical answer is that it is just a new configuration for the next primary single seat variant.

At this stage there's no reason to think that the modified dorsal fuselage hump and canopy does not offer similar benefits to drag that J-XY/35's similar arrangement. Unless someone has a wind tunnel, a representative model, and a decently powerful computer, don't trust people who claim to eyeball complex aerodynamics like that.

Yes, the greater volume of the hump would of course offer a number of benefits to generally having more space for various contents whether it be avionics or fuel.
But we have yet to get any clear pictures for the change in position of J-20B's EODAS/EOPDS placement compared to J-20A.
And the twin seat J-20AS is not decisive either.



The most likely answer for this J-20B is that it is the next major single seat production variant that would incorporate aerodynamic improvements, signature management/materials improvements, a larger scale avionics improvement, likely some newer production processes, and be intended to be compatible with WS-15 when it is ready for production, to dovetail with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top