I'm starting up a new thread, because I'm evaluating the hypothesis that the J-20 is already capable of supercruise, using only the AL-31 / WS-10.
Of course, if the J-20 were capable of supercruise, why haven't we been told this yet? Why hasn't it been leaked that the J-20 is supercruise capable?
A few hypotheses:
1. The null hypothesis is simple, the J-20 can't supercruise under its present engines. For the J-20 to be able to supercruise, it needs an intake-engine combo that can bypass the Mach barrier's drag spike. The combination of the J-20's current intake and the WS-10 / Al-31 is insufficient to present sufficient thrust at altitude.
2. The J-20 already can supercruise, but it's being kept mum for strategic reasons.
3. The J-20 has pseudo-supercruise or quasi-supercruise, i.e, it can supercruise at Mach 1.2 after using afterburners to break the Mach barrier, or it can supercruise below Mach 1.5, which is how the US Air Force is defining supercruise these days.
Any of these hypotheses is true, but I think the most tenable ones are 1 and 3. Hypothesis 1 is "absence of evidence implies evidence of absence", in the non-logically rigorous sense (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). 3, likewise, combines what we know about the J-20 (it's using the WS-10 simply as a stopgap engine and is a low-aspect ratio fighter with strong high-speed maneuverability).
To pursue hypothesis 3, however, we need to look at some interesting facts about the J-20 design that have heretofore been ignored. That is, inlet length. The J-20, for instance, has a particularly long inlet length relative to its body. This is a trait you don't see on the Su-27, and a trait you see moderately on the F-22 and moreso on the Eurocanards.
(To be continued)
Of course, if the J-20 were capable of supercruise, why haven't we been told this yet? Why hasn't it been leaked that the J-20 is supercruise capable?
A few hypotheses:
1. The null hypothesis is simple, the J-20 can't supercruise under its present engines. For the J-20 to be able to supercruise, it needs an intake-engine combo that can bypass the Mach barrier's drag spike. The combination of the J-20's current intake and the WS-10 / Al-31 is insufficient to present sufficient thrust at altitude.
2. The J-20 already can supercruise, but it's being kept mum for strategic reasons.
3. The J-20 has pseudo-supercruise or quasi-supercruise, i.e, it can supercruise at Mach 1.2 after using afterburners to break the Mach barrier, or it can supercruise below Mach 1.5, which is how the US Air Force is defining supercruise these days.
Any of these hypotheses is true, but I think the most tenable ones are 1 and 3. Hypothesis 1 is "absence of evidence implies evidence of absence", in the non-logically rigorous sense (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). 3, likewise, combines what we know about the J-20 (it's using the WS-10 simply as a stopgap engine and is a low-aspect ratio fighter with strong high-speed maneuverability).
To pursue hypothesis 3, however, we need to look at some interesting facts about the J-20 design that have heretofore been ignored. That is, inlet length. The J-20, for instance, has a particularly long inlet length relative to its body. This is a trait you don't see on the Su-27, and a trait you see moderately on the F-22 and moreso on the Eurocanards.
(To be continued)