Legendary Chinese CG artist Gaoshan responds to the Japanese magazine illustration:
J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Engineer
Major
First of all, the Japanese ARE way behind. J-20 flew, Japanese 4th generation equivalent hasn't. There is only one word to describe a claim that a vapor aircraft is further along in progress than a physical flying prototype, and that word is delusional.
Secondly, F-2's radar has a reputation of having high cost and low performance, just like the rest of the plane. May be the radar was one of the most advanced concept in the world during its inception, but that's not the case anymore. This is especially considering:
- Chinese's mechanical scan radars actually out range F-2's radar.
- Chinese already has AESA installed on J-10B.
If J/APG-1 is so advanced, it wouldn't need an upgrade.
Let see what Japanese have to say about their own radar:Source:
---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 AM ----------
You are contradicting yourself. Importing American aircraft is not a sign that Japan aviation industry is superior. Quite the opposite, it is a sign that their industry is inferior. After all, if Japanese aviation industry is so superior, then Japan would have already get their own 4th generation fighter prototype flying and wouldn't need to import F-35 at all.
Japan hasn't even design its own 3rd generation fighter, never mind a 4th generation fighter. On top of this, Japan has to rely on the US for everything. China got the J-20 flying, and have domestic suppliers for all the subsystems. Show me a video of Japan's 4th generation fighter prototype in service and you can claim Japan is ahead. Until then, Japan is behind and that's a fact.
---------- Post added at 10:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------
In other words, they have only built slightly over 94 sets of radars, and these radars don't meet design goals. Now the Japanese has to go back to the US for upgrades. It is easy to see that such a radar industry is anything but well developed. This isn't belittling, this is not elevating Japanese's technology status to something that they do not deserve just so someone can maintain their "China is still inferior" fantasy.
Japan having AESA before other nations has no relation as to whether their technology is superior to other nations today. Otherwise, you would have see US seeking help from Japan, not the other way around.
---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 AM ----------
Actually, F-22 TVC nozzles actually reduce thrust as they convert energy of the exhaust to form vortices. Furthermore, there is also no proof that TVC on the F-22 actually enhance stealth in anyway vs. concentric nozzle on the F-35.
TVC is only something that may serve as a bonus. But that is a big may, since TVC does not improve stealth, nor does it improve engine efficiency. The added weight may actually decrease engine efficiency since it is a decrease in thrust-to-weight ratio of the engine. As long as all the criteria for a 4th generation fighter are met, J-20 is a 4th generation fighter regardless of the existence of TVC.
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
let us forget about the japanese this is a J-20 thread.
The only thing i can say to you is this, TVC nozzles do increase thrust, 3D nozzles do increase thrust and are not heavy, if the J-20 would use them the advantages have been studied already by ITP
Safety:
Additional control device.
Reduced aircraft loss rate due to low speed departure.
A/C Superior Performance and Handling Qualities:
extended flight envelope.
increased angle of attack (including post stall).
increased rolling rate.
Mission Performance:
Reduced take off & landing distance.
Increased thrust and reduced fuel consumption by means of afterbody drag reduction at supercruise conditions and nozzle exit area optimisation for the whole flight envelope.
Life Cycle Cost Reduction:
Engine life increase.
A/C life increase.
No aircraft or engine structural modifications required, currently studied for the EF2000 aircraft, could not require either airframe or engine structural reinforcement.
So if J-20 will use TVC nozzles this will increase thrust but mostly 3D nozzles, 2D reduce thrust by the transition of rounded cross section to rectangular, but the drag is also reduced by lower aerodynamic deflection
Stealth
Using the theory that thrust vectoring can supplement control surfaces, it has
been shown that thrust vectoring has the ability to provide a “tailless” aircraft. On
these tailless aircraft vectored thrust provides engine-based flight control. The
benefits of reduced dependence on a rear tail are reduced drag, reduced aircraft
weight, and less radar cross section (Kowal,2002). These tailless designs are
therefore stealthier than other conventional designs as evident in figure
Squeezing the exhaust through a flat, narrow nozzle produces a mixed plume with a large surface area, which cools quickly. Airframe radiation — whether caused by solar or friction heating — can be reduced with the use of infrared suppressing paints and coating
So in my opinion if the Chinese go for 3d TVC nozzles great increases in stealth will be gained, but this will requiere to test them soon in order to have them deployed in 2018 as it is planed
Within the German-American VECTOR Program (Vectoring, Extremely short take-off and landing, Control, Tailless Operations Research), the possibility of reducing the vertical tail size of the existing X-31A aircraft has been investigated, exploiting its thrust-vectoring capability to compensate for the reduced size of the rudder as well as the reduced weathercock stability.
Important advantages of tailless aircraft configurations in general are a reduction in radar signature and airframe structural weight. The task of the Control Design Engineering Group was to develop flight control laws that provide stability augmentation and good flying qualities over the flight envelope, including post-stall conditions.
So if the TVC nozzles are fitted even the ventral fins might go away
Last edited:
That's what various big shrimps have been saying from the beginning and they have not changed their words.
Given their track records ever since J-10 from the mid-2000's, I'd believe them more than most foreign sources.
Engineer
Major
Addition of TVC is still an addition of mechanical weight. This may not be heavy, but it is still an increase in weight nonetheless which reduces thrust-to-weight ratio.
As far as thrust is concerned, increase of thrust requires increase in temperature of the turbine or increase diameter of the fan. An ability to point the nozzle in off-axis direction does not magically increase thrust. As for your quote of marketing gimmicks from ITP:
The said increased thrust and reduced fuel consumption is related to the variable nozzle. This variable nozzle is what controls the exterior and interior shape of the nozzle to reduce afterbody drag and optimization of nozzle exit area. This is already being employed on modern fighters, and has nothing to do with TVC.
Note that your quote say it is the absence of a tail that reduces drag. While TVC enables tailless aircraft to exist in theory, this doesn't automatically mean adding TVC to an aircraft with tail would produce the same benefits.
A concentric nozzle is not a flat nozzle, so the benefits from a flat nozzle will not be seen in a concentric (3D) TVN. You can reduce heat signature by using a flat nozzle which results in lost of engine thrust, or you can maintain engine thrust but lose the ability to reduce heat signature. It is either one or the other; you cannot have both.
Since you are talking about 3D TVN, which requires concentric nozzle, then there will be no increase in stealth in the form of reduced heat signature. In any case, J-20 is already stealthy as it is, and does not require TVN just to become stealthy.
Employment of TVN is only a goalpost that you set, which can be ignored because TVN simply isn't required for J-20 to meet criteria of being a 4th generation fighter aircraft. As long as WS-15 is ready within the next few years, there is no reason to believe J-20 will not be delivered to PLAAF by 2018.
This is completely irrelevant. J-20 has vertical fins, not a tailless aircraft, and does not require TVN to be flyable.
Last edited:
Actually, I would like to see a T-50 thread as bd suggested mig, and like player suggests all these aircraft are exciting and milestones in aeronautic developement. It is most interesting to see the cultural differences played out in this aerial art form, a lot of it is military philosphy and the Chinese seem to taking airpower very seriously as they try to bring their bird up to speed.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
look just to clarify, a flat nozzle is 2D that is the one seen on F-22, 3D is the one seen in F-16MATV, Su-35BM or T-50 and is the one discribed in the page of ITP
If J-20 goes for 2D these are heavier, but 3D TVC nozzles are light
If J-20 is fitted with 3D like ones planned for Eurofighter these are the advantages in supercruise
HIGH SPEED
Costa Krämer says that in terms of thrust vectoring, "most operationally significant is the speed that it gives you in supercruise, because obviously the pilots are very keen on low observability at high speed. This is really an immediate operational advantage. This number - 7% more thrust in supercruise - is quite a remarkable achievement."
now the weight penalty does not really exist
and the net weight is low
Eurojet partner ITP of Spain is responsible for the design of the EJ200's TVN, and has attempted to optimise the device for simplicity of operation while adding as little weight as possible (about 40kg/88lb per engine).
Flat nozzles are heavier and reduce engine thrust, but still allow for drag reduction
Presently, the flat nozzle has two inherent snags which, in principle, have not been dealt with yet. Firstly, the turbine is round but the nozzle is flat with a distance between them being small. The distance cannot be increased because this would lead to an increase in the overall length of the aircraft, a loss of thrust, etc. While transforming the circular gas stream into the flat one, the nozzle, developed by Mr. Ryzhov, was losing 14-17% of thrust. Unfor-tunately, the gas stream cannot be "bent" as we would like it to. It has its own laws too. So far, no one has managed to transform the circular gas stream into the flat one without losing thrust. The very same snag was hit by the Americans in developing their F-117 featuring a non-afterburning engine. Such engines lose approximately 15% of thrust too. However, the F-117 is a specialised Stealth aircraft with the main requirement of ensuring "invisibility". It does not need a real good thrust/weight ratio. That is why the Americans put up deliberately with an unavoidable loss of thrust but benefited from reduced signatures.
however F-22 reduces trim drag
All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight
Ah! and you do need to be tailess to reduce RCS with TVC nozzles, the simply use of TVC nozzles reduces deflection of aerodynamic surfaces such as canards or flapperons thus reducing RCS.
Thrust vectoring can also be used to reduce the radar cross-section (RCS) of very low-observable aircraft by removing the need for conventional aerodynamic control surfaces
however it is true the F119 has a great weight penalty that EJ200 does not have in terms of thrust vectoring weight penalty
In the past, all jet aircraft to apply thrust vectoring have used mechanical thrust vectoring (MTV) techniques. This is done by mechanically deflecting the engine nozzle to direct the flow. Whilst effective, a MTV system is heavy and complex. The MTV nozzle on the F-22A Raptor (Fig. 2) weighs 30% of the total engine weight
So if J-20 will be deployed in 2018 with TVC nozzles will need to deploy them soon to do not miss the 2018 deployment date
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
China is executing an ambitious defense modernization plan designed to make the country militarily self-sufficient by around the 2020s. So with a range of domestic fighter aircraft development programs in train – including the stealthy J-20 – it seems that buying new fighter jets from Russia probably wasn’t part of that plan.
Nonetheless, the Chinese have asked Russia to sell them the new Sukhoi Su-35 “Super Flanker” fighter aircraft, according to Alexander Fomin, deputy head of Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation. Cited by the Russian media, Fomin said that Beijing had filed a request for the S-35s – as well as S-400 air defense systems – back in 2011.
China isn’t transparent about defense procurement, so nobody knows for sure whether buying the Su-35 has always been part of its strategy, or whether it’s an admission of failure. But it’s been a decade since China has ordered any foreign jets – Russian Sukhoi Su-27s and Su-30s – for the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), leading many aviation analysts to conclude that the Chinese would only return to the international market if they had no choice.
Now, with both India and Japan ordering advanced new fighter aircraft, the PLAAF may have determined that it needs the new Russian jets as a stopgap while the Chinese aerospace industry continues to work through some critical technology challenges, notably aircraft engines and radar systems. By ordering the Su-35, China’s defense planners would essentially be demonstrating that they aren’t willing to gamble on the J-20 and the other advanced planes that the Chinese defense industry is working on.
Russia’s motivation is also complex. The Su-35 is a new aircraft that hasn’t yet entered active service with the Russian Air Force, and the Russians are reluctant to sell it to the Chinese because of their track record of reverse-engineering earlier model Sukhois and then churning out copies. Equally, the Russians are aware that the day is fast approaching when China will no longer need to import Russian defense technology, and they may be eyeing the Su-35 sale as a last hurrah in the Chinese marketplace.
If China really is interested in ordering the Su-35, Moscow will certainly be wary of Beijing’s rationale. It won’t want to sell the Chinese only a handful of aircraft, just so that they can clone some of the Su-35’s fanciest technology, in particular its advanced radar set. It will be looking instead for a serious commitment for the procurement of several squadrons.
The acquisition would make good sense for the PLAAF: the Su-35 would be the most effective aircraft in its inventory and serve as a powerful force multiplier. At the same time, it would be a setback for China’s self-sufficiency drive, and an admission that the dream of total self-reliance is still some years away from being realized. China is busy recasting itself as a defense exporter, rather than an importer. But the need for an advanced frontline fighter like the Su-35 might force Beijing, just this once, to break its own rules.
Image credit: Oleg Belyakov
Original article link:
Nonetheless, the Chinese have asked Russia to sell them the new Sukhoi Su-35 “Super Flanker” fighter aircraft, according to Alexander Fomin, deputy head of Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation. Cited by the Russian media, Fomin said that Beijing had filed a request for the S-35s – as well as S-400 air defense systems – back in 2011.
China isn’t transparent about defense procurement, so nobody knows for sure whether buying the Su-35 has always been part of its strategy, or whether it’s an admission of failure. But it’s been a decade since China has ordered any foreign jets – Russian Sukhoi Su-27s and Su-30s – for the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), leading many aviation analysts to conclude that the Chinese would only return to the international market if they had no choice.
Now, with both India and Japan ordering advanced new fighter aircraft, the PLAAF may have determined that it needs the new Russian jets as a stopgap while the Chinese aerospace industry continues to work through some critical technology challenges, notably aircraft engines and radar systems. By ordering the Su-35, China’s defense planners would essentially be demonstrating that they aren’t willing to gamble on the J-20 and the other advanced planes that the Chinese defense industry is working on.
Russia’s motivation is also complex. The Su-35 is a new aircraft that hasn’t yet entered active service with the Russian Air Force, and the Russians are reluctant to sell it to the Chinese because of their track record of reverse-engineering earlier model Sukhois and then churning out copies. Equally, the Russians are aware that the day is fast approaching when China will no longer need to import Russian defense technology, and they may be eyeing the Su-35 sale as a last hurrah in the Chinese marketplace.
If China really is interested in ordering the Su-35, Moscow will certainly be wary of Beijing’s rationale. It won’t want to sell the Chinese only a handful of aircraft, just so that they can clone some of the Su-35’s fanciest technology, in particular its advanced radar set. It will be looking instead for a serious commitment for the procurement of several squadrons.
The acquisition would make good sense for the PLAAF: the Su-35 would be the most effective aircraft in its inventory and serve as a powerful force multiplier. At the same time, it would be a setback for China’s self-sufficiency drive, and an admission that the dream of total self-reliance is still some years away from being realized. China is busy recasting itself as a defense exporter, rather than an importer. But the need for an advanced frontline fighter like the Su-35 might force Beijing, just this once, to break its own rules.
Image credit: Oleg Belyakov
Original article link:
Last edited:
Mig-29... how is this article relevant to the J-20 topic...
And we've heard weird claims from russian media before. An Su-35 purchase would make no sense for the PLAAF when J-11B can provide a good portion of the Su-35's A2A capability at a fraction of the cost and much easier logistics (AESA refits or on new builds will make it comparable or superior to the Su-35 anyway), and JH-7A, existing MKK/MK2s and the up and coming J-16 provide and will provide the strike capability of an Su-35 again at a fraction of the cost and with easier logistics.
Let's make it clear that the PLAAF are almost certainly NOT interested in the Su-35. They haven't been interested in buying russian fighters for the better side of a decade now and there's no reason for it to switch now.
Besides, it's not exactly an "ambitious drive" to reach self sufficiency. They've already done it in almost all areas.
A rather tunnel vision article from the diplomat again.
And we've heard weird claims from russian media before. An Su-35 purchase would make no sense for the PLAAF when J-11B can provide a good portion of the Su-35's A2A capability at a fraction of the cost and much easier logistics (AESA refits or on new builds will make it comparable or superior to the Su-35 anyway), and JH-7A, existing MKK/MK2s and the up and coming J-16 provide and will provide the strike capability of an Su-35 again at a fraction of the cost and with easier logistics.
Let's make it clear that the PLAAF are almost certainly NOT interested in the Su-35. They haven't been interested in buying russian fighters for the better side of a decade now and there's no reason for it to switch now.
Besides, it's not exactly an "ambitious drive" to reach self sufficiency. They've already done it in almost all areas.
A rather tunnel vision article from the diplomat again.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
simple it says why China needs Su-35 with supercruise ability and TVC nozzles and advanced radars if the J-20 is supposedly to have better engines WS-15 and it is ready to fly in 2018 in operational service?
And it gives a hint why Russia would not sell it since it might be just a way of getting the 117 and improve the WS-15.
However the article is more an essay, originally it was reported that China wanted just Su-35
China has asked Russia to supply it with Sukhoi Su-35 fighters and Almaz-Antei S-400 Triumph long-range air defence systems.
The Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper quoted Alexander Fomin, deputy head of Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, as saying that Beijing filed requests for the equipment last year. "The Russian side is considering these applications," he said
I think China has a lot to gain buy buying Su-35 and this also proves J-20 has no 117 engines in my opinion
Last edited:
- Status