J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Status
Not open for further replies.

delft

Brigadier
"the IR signature contributor is the exhaust gas, not the nozzle itself"

No, heat is much more effectively radiated by solids and liquids than by gasses.

Another remark: If the engines are less strong than we thought and the performance was as we saw, than the weight of the aircraft was less than we estimated.Of course the aircraft is somewhat shorter than we we thought, which helps. Leaving out equipment in the front part will move the center of gravity aft, so that can contribute little. The engines will perhaps be a little less heavy but that too cannot be important. But perhaps the structure is lighter by the use of more ( and newer?) synthetic materials. This might also have led to new structural concepts better fitting to these materials. ( I remember that the AV-8B was given a wing from fiber reinforced plastic but kept the structural concept of the previous aluminum wing ). Looking at the door of the main landing gear bay I suspect is is cast from magnesium, also a very light material.
 
Last edited:

paintgun

Senior Member
would that also be the case with exhaust gas plume from engine nozzle, the gas itself the primary heat source from combustion in the engine

further about the engine, the AL-31 or whatever interim engine they are using is certainly sufficient for testing purposes

does anyone catch any sort of talk or rumor, if they plan to continue use this engine futher into IOC if the WS-15 meets delay, and how far is the WS-15 development, any new rumor or news?

It is interesting that both China and Russia are setting 2018-2020 for IOC, and also tying their engine development schedule to roughly the same time, the Russians themselves ready to use 117 on early batch
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Actually I would be much more carefully esp. since the latest J-20 full-AB. I agree with You in regard to the overal "external" appearance but with now the inner structure visible for the first time I'm no longer sure anymore ... actually I think the details are more like an AL_31F-version.

If You look closely the WS-10A has a completely different set of flameholders with a different number of "damn, how do You call these things !?" ... and even if the Su-27 AB-photo is surely not the best they seem (at least IMO) much more comparable than to the WS-10.

Deino

By looking at the top two pictures there is a difference. The Su-27 has like eleven augmentor flame holders, meanwhile the J-20 has eight.
 

Centrist

Junior Member
No, heat is much more effectively radiated by solids and liquids than by gasses.

Another remark: If the engines are less strong than we thought and the performance was as we saw, than the weight of the aircraft was less than we estimated.Of course the aircraft is somewhat shorter than we we thought, which helps. Leaving out equipment in the front part will move the center of gravity aft, so that can contribute little. The engines will perhaps be a little less heavy but that too cannot be important. But perhaps the structure is lighter by the use of more ( and newer?) synthetic materials. This might also have led to new structural concepts better fitting to these materials. ( I remember that the AV-8B was given a wing from fiber reinforced plastic but kept the structural concept of the previous aluminum wing ). Looking at the door of the main landing gear bay I suspect is is cast from magnesium, also a very light material.

Well, I suppose we can assume that the first flight didn't carry much fuel. We also know that the J-20 doesn't appear to have a gun...at least not yet. It had no weapons, and probably no functioning EODAS. Perhaps that can explain it's short takeoff.
 

Martian

Senior Member
J-20 Mighty Dragon Air Dominance Stealth Fighter

dA60l.jpg

J-20 banks left and looks for prey.

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai and Feiyang 彬彬有礼 for the picture.]

----------

J-20 Mighty Dragon eats non-supercruise fighters for lunch

KcpCJ.jpg

J-20 Mighty Dragon can supercruise and easily catch non-supercruise fighters. If a non-supercruise fighter tries to escape by using its afterburner, it becomes vulnerable to heat-seeking missiles. Either way, the non-supercruise fighter will be terminated.

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the picture.]

----------

Why are canards better than horizontal tailplanes for supermaneuverability?

[video=youtube;PkvI39nImhY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkvI39nImhY[/video]

This is a fantastic video. The J-20 Mighty Dragon shows off its super-maneuverability and the advantage of a canard-based (instead of F-22 horizontal tailplane-based) stealth fighter design.

Canards and horizontal tailplanes are both horizontal stabilizers that provide stability and control for an airplane. However, a canard enables superior maneuverability.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"The theory behind canards as the sole elevator surface is that no elevator configuration aft of the wings is truly satisfactory for maneuvering purposes; the airflow over the wings creates turbulence, however small, and thus affects elevators placed directly behind the wings."

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the video.]

----------

J-20 Mighty Dragon and F-22 Raptor have the best planform alignment

Definitions and Terminologies:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"Planform alignment is also often used in stealth designs. Planform alignment involves using a small number of surface orientations in the shape of the structure. For example, on the F-22A Raptor, the leading edges of the wing and the tail surfaces are set at the same angle. Careful inspection shows that many small structures, such as the air intake bypass doors and the air refueling aperture, also use the same angles. The effect of planform alignment is to return a radar signal in a very specific direction away from the radar emitter rather than returning a diffuse signal detectable at many angles."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Jul 7, 2011 – The leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail have identical sweep angles (a design technique called planform alignment)."

-----

Let's examine the planform alignment for the Chinese J-20 Mighty Dragon, U.S. F-22 Raptor, and Russian Pak Fa/T-50. The comparison will focus on the main wings and the winglets (e.g. canards for J-20 and tailplanes for the F-22 and T-50).

KgXOp.jpg

The J-20 Mighty Dragon edge alignment for its main wings and canards has only five different sweep angles (e.g. red, green, orange, yellow, and blue).

IdN5E.jpg

The F-22 matches the J-20 in edge-alignment design for its main wings and rear horizontal tailplanes. The F-22 also has a total of only five different sweep angles (e.g. red, green, orange, yellow, and blue).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Pak Fa/T-50 has the worst edge-alignment design for its main wings and rear horizontal tailplanes. The Pak Fa/T-50 has a massive total of 11 different sweep angles (e.g. addition of pink, light blue, purple, dark red, black, and white).

In conclusion, the Pak Fa/T-50 cannot match the stealthiness of the planform alignment design of the main wings and winglets for the J-20 and F-22. With an extra six different sweep angles, the Pak Fa/T-50 is clearly more detectable by radar in many more directions.

[Note: I want to credit "Phaid" (post on 10/3/2010 8:03:28 AM) with noticing the inferior planform alignment of the Pak Fa/T-50. Though he did not perform the detailed analysis that I just did, I want to credit him with the earlier insight.]
 
Last edited:

Schumacher

Senior Member
.............
In conclusion, the Pak Fa/T-50 cannot match the stealthiness of the planform alignment design of the main wings and winglets for the J-20 and F-22. With an extra six different sweep angles, the Pak Fa/T-50 is clearly more detectable by radar in many more directions.

[Note: I want to credit "Phaid" (post on 10/3/2010 8:03:28 AM) with noticing the inferior planform alignment of the Pak Fa/T-50. Though he did not perform the detailed analysis that I just did, I want to credit him with the earlier insight.]

Welcome back Martian. Can you comment on the planform alignment of the F35 ?
 

Martian

Senior Member
I will examine F-35 planform alignment in the near future

Welcome back Martian. Can you comment on the planform alignment of the F35 ?

Thank you Schumacher.

I had to take a break from the annoying pests that kept bugging me about trivial matters. I've decided that I'm just going to ignore them from now on. If I do not consider a post to be worthy of a reply, there will be silence from me.

To address your question, I did not examine the F-35's planform alignment. Your point is valid and I should have analyzed the F-35's planform alignment. I will do it in the near future.

----------

While we're on the subject of the F-35, I want to share my observation that there is no internal gun for the F-35B version to save weight and enable vertical take-off.

mD2Ew.jpg

F-35B STOVL ("short takeoff and vertical landing") variant for the Marines does not have an internal gun. Without a mounted external gun pod, the F-35B can't dogfight.

I5oB7.jpg

Do you see the big bump above the left air-inlet (from the pilot's frame of reference) on the Air Force's F-35A version of the Joint Strike Fighter? That is the housing for the F-35A's gun and plenty of ammo.

----------

Let me say that I'm skeptical about the claim of a stealthy external gun pod. The addition of a large pod will disrupt the clean lines of a stealth aircraft and present more surfaces and angles for radar reflections.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"You also ask about whether the aircraft has a gun, and the answer depends on what variant you ask about. The Air Force's CTOL model is the only version carrying an internal gun. The GAU-12 25-mm cannon is mounted above the engine inlet on the left side of the plane, as shown in the diagram below.

PvpI2.jpg

Internal gun carried by the F-35 CTOL variant​

The Navy and Marines, meanwhile, have both opted for a specialized external gun pod on their CV and STOVL variants. The same GAU-12 cannon is carried, but in a special tear-drop pod that can be mounted on a dedicated centerline pylon between the aft portion of the weapons bays. The pod is unique in that it employs stealth characteristics and should allow the aircraft to maintain low observability. Other advantages of the gun pod include room for a larger ammunition supply and the ability to remove the pod on missions where a gun is not necessary.

wMDF4.jpg

Optional external gun pod that can be carried by the F-35 CV and STOVL variants"​

-----

Second citation (see footnotes):
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"Armament

The F-35A includes a GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm cannon.[107] The cannon is mounted internally with 182 rounds for the F-35A or in an external pod with 220 rounds for the F-35B and F-35C.[108][109] The gun pod for the B and C variants will have stealth features. This pod could be used for different equipment in the future, such as electronic warfare equipment, reconnaissance equipment, or possibly a rearward-facing radar.[110]"
 
Last edited:

latenlazy

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Pak Fa/T-50 has the worst edge-alignment design for its main wings and rear horizontal tailplanes. The Pak Fa/T-50 has a massive total of 11 different sweep angles (e.g. addition of pink, light blue, purple, dark red, black, and white).
...Well, technically the purple is aligned with the yellow, and the red is aligned with the white...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top