J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

latenlazy · May 6, 2011

Asymptote said:
He did.

".......Even a cursory examination of the available photographs reveals major surface disruptions that would appear very bright to a modern high frequency radar. Access panels, cavities, and vents are visible which could not be eliminated or controlled without significant design changes."

"The sizing of some of these features matters. With even an imprecise measure of the size of some of these features it is clear that they were intended to mask the aircraft from lower frequency radars, and from a narrow range of aspect angles."

What he meant isn't just about how smooth it is, but the sizing of these features. It has to do with radar frequency irradiation of these features.

There are also many other major disruption on surface even from frontal angle that we can see from the comparison shot below.

A large frontal reflecting surface at the inlet, the bump along the edge of canard gap,
change of alignment angle along the gap, round LERX (Leading edge root extensions), gaps on the leading edge slats, and uneven surface along the body (see the alignment line).

I would assume those little spikes (I counted 5) that sticks out around the nose will be removed from the production line model. If not, those are major disruption too.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The examples in his writing was a loose screw on the Have Blue. If he were talking about smoothed out surface structures on the plane though he's really picking his cherries. The fact that there are structural bumps and uneven surfaces that are smoothed out along the is a normal characteristic we see in all stealth fighters (yes, that F-22 has these "defects" as well, including a less than perfect alignment line). The point is that the shape and size of these surface features, as well as its material composition and coating, are designed to limit radar return, and it's the overall effect of the airframe that counts and not its individual parts. Quellish's post argued that the J-20 had too many small protruding surface features that made it detectable with higher band radars, but it really doesn't have that many more surface features than the F-22 does, and like the F-22 those features are shaped.

In the J-20s case we don't know if the frontal reflectors along the inlet are heavily treated with Ram like the F-22s inlet, or if they're made with dielectric materials, or if they fact generate the same or lesser radar return because they block radar from entering the inlet (Also note that these features also exist in the F-35). We don't know if those LERXes are shaped in a way that still works with the shape of the airplane (it's the net outcome and not the parts after all), if they're made from radar transparent material, or if they're treated with RAM. We don't even know if or how many design revisions the J-20 will go through. However, in so far you haven't indicated anything that hurts radar return on the J-20 that doesn't exist on the F-22 in some way or form.

Hendrik_2000 · May 6, 2011

Asymptote said:
You didn't bring any evidence to your argument about J-20. So, personal bashing aside, you brought nothing to the table besides trying to slander me.

AsBM is not publicly acknowledged, AsBM is not tested, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IT ACTUALLY EXISTED. It should be treated as myth until proven otherwise.

Seriously, bring something to the table for discussion. Its infantile to just shout and slander. Also, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am bashing China.

Admiral Willard in his testimony before congressional subcommittee acknowledge the existence of ASBM and so do other intelligence agency like ONI and Taiwan Chief of intelligence. The Chinese DO acknowledge the existence of ASBM. Are you saying they all lying. Here is sample what they say

An August 26, 2010, news report stated:
A ballistic missile under development in China for the purpose of deterring and attacking U.S.
aircraft carriers in the western Pacific is close to becoming operational, according to Adm. Robert
Willard, commander of U.S. Pacific Command.
Willard provided the assessment in a recent round table discussion with Japanese media in
Tokyo….
Asked how he perceives the current status of development [of China’s anti-ship ballistic missile],
Willard said, “To our knowledge, it has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to
being operational.”
(Yoichi Kato, “China’s Anti-Ship Missile Is Nearly Operational,” Asahi.com (Asahi Shimbun),

August 26, 2010.)
On March 23, 2010, Admiral Willard testified that China was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic
missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 MRBM designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.” (Statement of Admiral
Robert F. Willard, U.S. Navy, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Before the House Armed Services Committee on
U.S. Pacific Command Posture, March 23, 2010, p. 14.) Some observers believe this was the first time that a DOD
official stated publicly that China’s ASBM was not only in development, but that is had reached the testing stage.

In response to a query from Bloomberg news reporter Tony Capaccio, the Deputy Chief of
Naval Operations for Information Dominance (N2/N6) provided the following responses on
Monday 3 January 2011:
26 Tony Capaccio, “China’s Anti-Ship Missiles Aren’t Effective Yet, U.S. Navy Says,” Bloomberg.com, January 3,
2011.

1. Does the US Navy agree with ADM Willard’s view that the Chinese have reached Initial
Operational Capability (IOC) with the DF 21D?

Answer: The U.S. Navy agrees with Admiral Willard’s characterization of the DF-21D as
[having reached] IOC. China has developed a workable design for an antiship ballistic
missile. However, several definitions of IOC used by U.S. agencies include the requirement
that an operational unit be capable of effectively employing the system in question. The U.S.
Navy does not believe this is the case for China and the DF-21D.

2. Do the Chinese have the C2, satellite links, and other systems in place and operational to
potentially employ the missile?

Answer: China likely has the space based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(ISR), command and control structure, and ground processing capabilities necessary to
support DF-21D employment. China operates a wide spectrum of satellites which can
provide data useful for targeting within its maritime region. China employs an array of nonspace
based sensors and surveillance assets capable of providing the targeting information
necessary to employ the DF-21D
.
3. How effective can it be if it has not been flight tested?

Answer: It is unknown to us, and probably the Chinese, as to how effective the missile will
be without a full-scale test.

4. Has the satellite and command and control system needed to cue the weapon been IOC’d?
If not, any sense of how many more years?

Answer: Yes, the satellite C2 systems are likely in place.

5. Does N2 assess that the missile itself, without the satellite cuing system, is a threat to
Navy carriers and other vessels?

Answer: Yes, China’s non-space based ISR could provide the necessary information to
support DF-21D employment. This includes aircraft, UAVs, fishing boats, and over-thehorizon
radar for ocean surveillance and targeting.27

Vice Admiral David J. Dorsett, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information
Dominance, stated the following at a January 5, 2011, meeting with defense reporters:

Question: You mentioned the DF-21. Is that a game-changer? Do you consider that
operational, or is that like what we did with Global Hawk where we rushed something out to
the field really before it was fully shaken out?

Dorsett: I think [inaudible] has written an article on it just recently, and our assessment,
Admiral Willard’s assessment at PACOM is that it has reached an initial operational
capability. I think that’s true.

vesicles · May 6, 2011

Asymptote said:
I still think it *may* be just for the look....
China is still lagging pretty far behind to the industrialized world in so many aspects. The J-20 shows they know how to make airframe to "look stealthy" now, we still don't know exactly how stealthy it is, or how combat effective is its stealth (Does it get wash off?! there are many posters here who seems to think the stealth RAM paint get wash off F-22 easily...if the high tech F-22 can get their RAM Paint wash off so easily, what chance does China have to make water resistant RAM paint??). With China's industrial prowess, I think the manufacturing are still largely by hand (QBZ-95's designer complained that he had to account for the manual production method that plagued the accuracy of QBZ-95 - of course, this is a conjuncture).

By the same line of thought, we also don't know how stealthy and combat effective F-22 is as none of the critical information of F-22 has been leaked. As of now, no one knows the detailed design of F-22, just like J-20. Applying the same logic, F-22 may also be only for the "look". F-22 has also never been in combat. Although there have been plenty exercises and trainings involving F-22 facing off other fighters, F-22 has never seen actual combat (I'm talking about air-to-air combats, not simply bombing sorties). So according to your logic, F-22 may also be "only for the look".

As we all know, with aircraft, shape is absolutely critical in determining how aerodynamic it would be. Geometric shape is even more critical to stealthiness of an aircraft as its shape determines how effective it can reflect radar signals. So if it has the "look", that means its shape has been designed to contain crucial elements that enhance its stealthiness. Additionally, if it has the "look", it means it contains elements that enhance its speed, agility, etc. It you have paid any attention to what many of our fellow posters have been discussing, you'll know that many elements incorporated into the design of a fighter have their distinct shape and size, such as delta wing, movable tail fin, etc. and these elements are indicative of the plane's overall performance, be it stealthiness or agility. So in other words, look = performance

Asymptote said:
Again, I am not a hater, please don't label me as such. I am just trying inject realism to this discussion. I have never intend to bash China.

I think you are trying to let us know that you are objective in terms of discussing issues with China. One key element with being objective is to base your discussion on physical evidence, not to be affected by one's own feelings. However, you are doing the exact opposite. You opened your post with the words like "I still think", which suggests that you had no evidence what-so-ever and were saying it based on your own subjective feeling. You then listed a few things as your evidence. However, these things have nothing to do with your initial argument. As far as I can understand, you have no clue what kind of stealth material J-20 uses. Then how can you objectively decide that J-20 material is useless?

The only message you have conveyed is that we don't have any evidence how effective J-20 can be. A glass-half-full kind of guy would assume the active effectiveness of J-20 could match or exceed what we have speculated. You, however, suggested that J-20 is nothing but "look". The fact that you assumed the worst without any evidence (suggested by you) indicates that you don't have a favorite view of China and only wish the worst of China. That makes you a China hater and China basher. Plain and simple...

TerraN_EmpirE · May 6, 2011

Probes on the nose of a prototype aircraft are common and often do vanish from the final product they are sensors used too gauge necessary data regarding true airspeed and air flow. In the Case of the F117 they never left the finished product. Breaks in the stealth profile are too be expected in any stealth aircraft, the only perfect thing is imperfection especial in a proof of concept aircraft, By production time the goal is too have deleted most of and lessened the degree of such breaks well still maintaining the capability too fly and maneuver.

Asymptote · May 6, 2011

Hendrik_2000 said:
Admiral Willard in his testimony before congressional subcommittee acknowledge the existence of ASBM and so do other intelligence agency like ONI and Taiwan Chief of intelligence. The Chinese DO acknowledge the existence of ASBM. Are you saying they all lying. Here is sample what they say

An August 26, 2010, news report stated:
A ballistic missile under development in China for the purpose of deterring and attacking U.S.
aircraft carriers in the western Pacific is close to becoming operational, according to Adm. Robert
Willard, commander of U.S. Pacific Command.
Willard provided the assessment in a recent round table discussion with Japanese media in
Tokyo….
Asked how he perceives the current status of development [of China’s anti-ship ballistic missile],
Willard said, “To our knowledge, it has undergone repeated tests and it is probably very close to
being operational.”
(Yoichi Kato, “China’s Anti-Ship Missile Is Nearly Operational,” Asahi.com (Asahi Shimbun),

August 26, 2010.)
On March 23, 2010, Admiral Willard testified that China was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic
missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 MRBM designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.” (Statement of Admiral
Robert F. Willard, U.S. Navy, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Before the House Armed Services Committee on
U.S. Pacific Command Posture, March 23, 2010, p. 14.) Some observers believe this was the first time that a DOD
official stated publicly that China’s ASBM was not only in development, but that is had reached the testing stage.

In response to a query from Bloomberg news reporter Tony Capaccio, the Deputy Chief of
Naval Operations for Information Dominance (N2/N6) provided the following responses on
Monday 3 January 2011:
26 Tony Capaccio, “China’s Anti-Ship Missiles Aren’t Effective Yet, U.S. Navy Says,” Bloomberg.com, January 3,
2011.

1. Does the US Navy agree with ADM Willard’s view that the Chinese have reached Initial
Operational Capability (IOC) with the DF 21D?

Answer: The U.S. Navy agrees with Admiral Willard’s characterization of the DF-21D as
[having reached] IOC. China has developed a workable design for an antiship ballistic
missile. However, several definitions of IOC used by U.S. agencies include the requirement
that an operational unit be capable of effectively employing the system in question. The U.S.
Navy does not believe this is the case for China and the DF-21D.

2. Do the Chinese have the C2, satellite links, and other systems in place and operational to
potentially employ the missile?

Answer: China likely has the space based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(ISR), command and control structure, and ground processing capabilities necessary to
support DF-21D employment. China operates a wide spectrum of satellites which can
provide data useful for targeting within its maritime region. China employs an array of nonspace
based sensors and surveillance assets capable of providing the targeting information
necessary to employ the DF-21D
.
3. How effective can it be if it has not been flight tested?

Answer: It is unknown to us, and probably the Chinese, as to how effective the missile will
be without a full-scale test.

4. Has the satellite and command and control system needed to cue the weapon been IOC’d?
If not, any sense of how many more years?

Answer: Yes, the satellite C2 systems are likely in place.

5. Does N2 assess that the missile itself, without the satellite cuing system, is a threat to
Navy carriers and other vessels?

Answer: Yes, China’s non-space based ISR could provide the necessary information to
support DF-21D employment. This includes aircraft, UAVs, fishing boats, and over-thehorizon
radar for ocean surveillance and targeting.27

Vice Admiral David J. Dorsett, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information
Dominance, stated the following at a January 5, 2011, meeting with defense reporters:

Question: You mentioned the DF-21. Is that a game-changer? Do you consider that
operational, or is that like what we did with Global Hawk where we rushed something out to
the field really before it was fully shaken out?

Dorsett: I think [inaudible] has written an article on it just recently, and our assessment,
Admiral Willard’s assessment at PACOM is that it has reached an initial operational
capability. I think that’s true.

Without derailing the topic, I have only one question. How does it test without being detected? And you certainly can't have something IOC without having it tested FULLY.

There were already millions of discussion about this - many believe its just Pentagon asking for more money by promoting the China fear. So far PLA never acknowledge it. Its all speculation from OUTSIDE CHINA. So until we have actual flight test to confirm this, I think its all smoke and mirror. Nothing more.

latenlazy · May 6, 2011

Asymptote said:
Without derailing the topic, I have only one question. How does it test without being detected? And you certainly can't have something IOC without having it tested FULLY.

There were already millions of discussion about this - many believe its just Pentagon asking for more money by promoting the China fear. So far PLA never acknowledge it. Its all speculation from OUTSIDE CHINA. So until we have actual flight test to confirm this, I think its all smoke and mirror. Nothing more.

Funny, they said that about the J-20 too, and now people instead are saying it's not a full stealth platform, too big, not as good as the F-22, etc. Sounds like a moving guidepost.

Hendrik_2000 · May 6, 2011

Asymptote said:
Without derailing the topic, I have only one question. How does it test without being detected? And you certainly can't have something IOC without having it tested FULLY.

There were already millions of discussion about this - many believe its just Pentagon asking for more money by promoting the China fear. So far PLA never acknowledge it. Its all speculation from OUTSIDE CHINA. So until we have actual flight test to confirm this, I think its all smoke and mirror. Nothing more.

PLA do acknowledge that DF 21 D is in operation

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A military source close to the development, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to the Global Times yesterday that "The subject under development is a medium- and long-range conventional missile with a traveling distance of as far as 4,000 kilometers."

"The research is going smoothly, and the missile will be produced and ready for service in five years," he said, noting that the project would also entail a three-year evaluation period.

"It extends the range of China's missiles and will therefore greatly enhance the national defense capabilities," the source said.

The source also unveiled that "the Chinese-made Dong Feng 21D missile, with firing range between 1800 and 2800 kilometers, is already deployed in the army."

Asymptote · May 6, 2011

vesicles said:
By the same line of thought, we also don't know how stealthy and combat effective F-22 is as none of the critical information of F-22 has been leaked. As of now, no one knows the detailed design of F-22, just like J-20. Applying the same logic, F-22 may also be only for the "look". F-22 has also never been in combat. Although there have been plenty exercises and trainings involving F-22 facing off other fighters, F-22 has never seen actual combat (I'm talking about air-to-air combats, not simply bombing sorties). So according to your logic, F-22 may also be "only for the look".

As we all know, with aircraft, shape is absolutely critical in determining how aerodynamic it would be. Geometric shape is even more critical to stealthiness of an aircraft as its shape determines how effective it can reflect radar signals. So if it has the "look", that means its shape has been designed to contain crucial elements that enhance its stealthiness. Additionally, if it has the "look", it means it contains elements that enhance its speed, agility, etc. It you have paid any attention to what many of our fellow posters have been discussing, you'll know that many elements incorporated into the design of a fighter have their distinct shape and size, such as delta wing, movable tail fin, etc. and these elements are indicative of the plane's overall performance, be it stealthiness or agility. So in other words, look = performance

look = performance right?

So these are all fully working combatant then?

There is the "look", and there is the "substance".
Unfortunately, China is the former for far too long. Back in Boxer Rebellion those "boxers" believe they can stop BULLETS and CANON with their body. LMAO.

Let's put it this way, for far too long, China's science is more mystical then grounded in reality and science (I am talking about pre-1900). Chinese Kungfu? Its more about the "form" than about actual application.

Anyway. Back to J-20.
So, you are saying F-22 is untested in combat so its not believable it has any combat effectiveness?!
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but America is the first to operate stealth fighter and bomber for DECADES (That's 25-30 years). It has more than proven itself in every type of scenario, and F-22 is NOT the first stealth aircraft design by America.

On the other hand, J-20 is the FIRST stealth aircraft design by China. It is the third combat aircraft completely design by China right?? (Let's not count the Soviet clones) So, pardon my skepticism, but China practically has no indigenous aircraft design experience compare to America. Infact, China has not design a single aircraft COMPLETELY ON THEIR OWN. J-20 is possibly the FIRST since WS-15 is supposely completely Chinese.

And WS-15 is also a big question mark too - will China be able to finish the design or is it going to languish in development hell like the Indian Kaveri ?? And then beg Russia for AF-31/41...? Its all a big question mark.

I think you are trying to let us know that you are objective in terms of discussing issues with China. One key element with being objective is to base your discussion on physical evidence, not to be affected by one's own feelings. However, you are doing the exact opposite. You opened your post with the words like "I still think", which suggests that you had no evidence what-so-ever and were saying it based on your own subjective feeling. You then listed a few things as your evidence. However, these things have nothing to do with your initial argument. As far as I can understand, you have no clue what kind of stealth material J-20 uses. Then how can you objectively decide that J-20 material is useless?

The only message you have conveyed is that we don't have any evidence how effective J-20 can be. A glass-half-full kind of guy would assume the active effectiveness of J-20 could match or exceed what we have speculated. You, however, suggested that J-20 is nothing but "look". The fact that you assumed the worst without any evidence (suggested by you) indicates that you don't have a favorite view of China and only wish the worst of China. That makes you a China hater and China basher. Plain and simple...

Let me quote you what I said before.

"Its not just the Russians, the Americans, the Europeans, practically everyone goes through the same process of aircraft design (or any type of design - its standard design process / evolution). The americans call it "lineage", where a new product is the result of hundreds of prototypes, mock ups and aggregation of previous generation's design. The F-22 itself was the result of F-119/B-2 stealth tech, with decades of experiences designing various previous generation fighters that finally came to fruition in F-22. The F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, are all part of that lineage. (And the extent to which american explore the airframe design + their XF series of experimental airframes). And even when they finally nail down the specification, they still put up a competitive tendering process, with Lockheed Martin/Boeing pitted against Northrop/McDonnell Douglas - with 2 VERY different designs, with both designs very mature and production capable.

The J-20 on the other hand, seems to be evoluted out of J-10 and J-11B, with both platform still very new and "shaky" (with lots of kinks and problems still needs to be work through / find out after decade of use).

If you look at the development of F-22, it was build upon decades of previous generation design (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18) it took almost 25 years from beginning of 1980's ATX program until it enter service in 2005, with several concurrent developments such as F-117/B-2 that aided to its design in the final product.

The Russian pretty much were the same, they developed from decades of previous generation experience, from Mig-29/Su-27/Su-30/Su-35/Mig-35/ Su-37 until they begin the Mig 1.42/1.44, and the horizontal development of Su-47 (composite body, radical airframe) until they finally settle on the PAK-FA.

Design just doesn't come about suddenly, it has to be built on SOLID GROUND."

Well, I certainly can't say what stealth material J-20 has, but like I say before, having favorable view without grounded in realism is dangerous. Believing J-20 is as good as F-22, you are only deluding yourself like those Boxers, only to be utterly obliterated by a real canon.

latenlazy · May 6, 2011

Asymptote said:
Let's put it this way, for far too long, China's science is more mystical then grounded in reality and science (I am talking about pre-1900). Chinese Kungfu? Its more about the "form" than about actual application.

This is really for a different thread, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, I certainly can't say what stealth material J-20 has, but like I say before, having favorable view without grounded in realism is dangerous. Believing J-20 is as good as F-22, you are only deluding yourself like those Boxers, only to be utterly obliterated by a real canon.

It's funny that you insist one side is spewing hyperbole, and then engage in hyperbole of your own. (Though, I should probably assume good humour on your part?)

Are you going to address my response to your comparison picture? That's a real comparison there, and instead of getting sidetracked with verbal back and forths, maybe you should address my arguments. Also, keep in mind that having unfavourable views that aren't grounded in reality is equally as bad.

Asymptote · May 6, 2011

Hendrik_2000 said:
PLA do acknowledge that DF 21 D is in operation

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A military source close to the development, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to the Global Times yesterday that "The subject under development is a medium- and long-range conventional missile with a traveling distance of as far as 4,000 kilometers."

"The research is going smoothly, and the missile will be produced and ready for service in five years," he said, noting that the project would also entail a three-year evaluation period.

"It extends the range of China's missiles and will therefore greatly enhance the national defense capabilities," the source said.

The source also unveiled that "the Chinese-made Dong Feng 21D missile, with firing range between 1800 and 2800 kilometers, is already deployed in the army."

They never said its AsBM. Its all speculated, from external source.
All we know so far its that its a solid propellant MRBM. It has never been tested against a moving target. At sea. Moving.

J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

latenlazy

Brigadier

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

vesicles

Colonel

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

Asymptote

Banned Idiot

latenlazy

Brigadier

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Asymptote

Banned Idiot

latenlazy

Brigadier

Asymptote

Banned Idiot