J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lion

Senior Member
Quickie said:
Looks like those people are not able to see pass the more conventional aerodynamics design they're so used to, to come to understand the more unconventional methods of achieving aircraft design requirement as proposed in Dr Song's paper.

My opinion is that the use of canards in the J-20 design, or any other jetfighter, already points to a maneuverablity requirement. The thing is, if the intended design is that of a striker jetfighter, the use of the canards would already be out of the question. There has never been a dedicated canard striker/bomber jetfighter and the J-20 designer would certainly not make an exception as if designing a stealth figher is not already complicated enough.
Click to expand...

Remember Russia SU-34. Canard fighter/bomber. Of cause, my point is not to discredit J-20 as non advance fighter or lack of agility.

Anyway, why Russia go for SU-34 with canard? Any insight of it?
 
Quickie

Quickie

Colonel
Lion said:
Remember Russia SU-34. Canard fighter/bomber. Of cause, my point is not to discredit J-20 as non advance fighter or lack of agility.

Anyway, why Russia go for SU-34 with canard? Any insight of it?
Click to expand...

The Su-34's canards, which is also present in a few other flanker variants, have different functions, among which is to increase the aircraft AOA and lift for higher payload. The aircraft's horizontal stabilizers are the main control surfaces handling the aircraft's pitch control, as opposed to a true canard fighter which uses the canard for pitch control.

In my previous post, when I said canard fighter, I meant true canard fighters like J-10, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen etc where the horizontal stabilizers are nowhere to be found.
 
Last edited:
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Lion said:
Remember Russia SU-34. Canard fighter/bomber. Of cause, my point is not to discredit J-20 as non advance fighter or lack of agility.

Anyway, why Russia go for SU-34 with canard? Any insight of it?
Click to expand...

The head on the Su-34 was heavier since it was enlarged to house two people to sit side by side. It also has the benefit of increasing the aircraft's maneuverability. The Su-34 is probably the most maneuverable dedicated fighter bomber out there.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
kyanges said:
Weapons bay specs should pretty much be the final word in the role of the J-20, right?
Click to expand...

Nope it could still be an interceptor if the weapons bay isn't large enough, according to our internet "experts". When the J-20's maneuverability is proven at Zhuhai they will then start questioning things like radar, avionics, and the ever so popular radar cross section.
 
Last edited:
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Lion said:
So more or less it confirms J-20 will have a conventional engine and no TVC.
Click to expand...

Not a confirmation. A potential reason if we don't see it with one, but they'v been talking about TVC for so long I'm somewhat doubtful they won't implement it on some way or form.


Deino said:
Xi Jinping ... is it correct, the current Vice-Chairman of the Central Military Commission and the PRC's Vice President ! ... I somewhere read that he is assigned to become Chairman of the CMC at around 2012/13 (or in other posts that he Xi would succeed Hu Jintao as Secretary and President in 2012) ; any idea, what is that correct ?

Deino
Click to expand...
Xi is next in line for the power transfer in 2012, so yes, that is correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top