J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Deino said:

Just another observation !

Could it be that one engine (the open one) is the standard AL-31 we've also seen o 2001 and the second one is the other "still mystery" one on the left which actually powers the flights ??

Deino[

Click to expand...

I dont think so. they look pretty identical to me. The colours dont match exactly, but that could be a optical illusion, part of the lighting around the plane. Besides, where did you get the ideia that only one engine powers the plane ?

airsuperiority said:

In strategic studies, weapons such as J-20, F-22, T-50, ASBMs are all game changers. And I think what you're referring to will be the defensive dilemma in realism of international studies: one state creates a superweapon that leads to other states to create some too to prevent being put in harm's way by the state who has it

Click to expand...

They are game changers in terms of tactical conventional cability, not strategic or nuclear.
The USA had B-2s but the B-2 fleet won`t stop SLBM fire from Submarines of artillery nuclear shells from being fired.
The B-2 even does not guarantee the ability to find mobile all ICBM launchers.

I mean the B-2 can change a war where there is no real chance of total nuclear war and only with a conventionally armed adversary.

Same is J-20, the J-20 might be able to down a F-22 or F-35 but it won`t stop an ICBM in flight or a SLBM in flight or deep in the sea from being launched or a nuclear armed artillery shell in flight.

So as the US in the 1990s knew, they know the Russians did not worry too much about the B-2, simply because the B-2 does not guarrantee unvulnerability to nuclear response.

Plus today IR detectors are able to detect stealth aircraft and new SAM like S-400 and even S-500 allow for longer ranges of engagements due to better radar and IR detectors and better preformance of missiles.

So having a stealth fighter is not a guarantee at all, even in air combat Rafale or Su-35 might be able to down stealth fighters.

So the J-20 of course has a big impact in conventional war, but in won`t change the ability of the nation deploying it of avoiding nuclear holocaust

kroko said:

I dont think so. they look pretty identical to me. The colours dont match exactly, but that could be a optical illusion, part of the lighting around the plane. Besides, where did you get the ideia that only one engine powers the plane ?

Click to expand...

Hu ... where did I say that only one engine powers the J-20 2001.

If I was misleading: I meant the one type that powers the current prototype - surely these are two engines !

Deino

Deino said:

Just another observation !

Could it be that one engine (the open one) is the standard AL-31 we've also seen o 2001 and the second one is the other "still mystery" one on the left which actually powers the flights ??

Deino[

Click to expand...

Don't get what you really mean but the right nozzle does look different like it's newer than the one on the left.
Another thing, the engine farings of both the engines look fatter. Is it just the effect of the picture or is it not?

Quickie said:

Don't get what you really mean but the right nozzle does look different like it's newer than the one on the left.
Another thing, the engine farings of both the engines look fatter. Is it just the effect of the picture or is it not?

Click to expand...

Sorry guys ... maybe it was a too long too hard day for me yesterday to properly explain:

My idea is simply a comparision to the "engines" we've seen at the no. 2001 prototype. It started its taxi-tests definitly with a version of the AL-31F (I'm still sure a standard FN !), which were later replaced by these "different" engines with the more silverish ones. If these are now yet another AL-31-version (IMO most likely !) or a WS-10G is irrelevant.

Se image attachet below: left old AL-31 during taxi tests and right new during flight tests !

Now for no. 2002 prototype it could be exactly the same but maybe we just see the engine change ?!

Hope that was clearer now,
Deino

Deino said:

Sorry guys ... maybe it was a too long too hard day for me yesterday to properly explain:

My idea is simply a comparision to the "engines" we've seen at the no. 2001 prototype. It started its taxi-tests definitly with a version of the AL-31F (I'm still sure a standard FN !), which were later replaced by these "different" engines with the more silverish ones. If these are now yet another AL-31-version (IMO most likely !) or a WS-10G is irrelevant.

Se image attachet below: left old AL-31 during taxi tests and right new during flight tests !

Now for no. 2002 prototype it could be exactly the same but maybe we just see the engine change ?!

Hope that was clearer now,
Deino

Click to expand...

Ok, I get it now. The left nozzle is not that clear but it seems to me though both the nozzles have similar features.

Deino said:

Sorry guys ... maybe it was a too long too hard day for me yesterday to properly explain:

My idea is simply a comparision to the "engines" we've seen at the no. 2001 prototype. It started its taxi-tests definitly with a version of the AL-31F (I'm still sure a standard FN !), which were later replaced by these "different" engines with the more silverish ones. If these are now yet another AL-31-version (IMO most likely !) or a WS-10G is irrelevant.

Se image attachet below: left old AL-31 during taxi tests and right new during flight tests !

Now for no. 2002 prototype it could be exactly the same but maybe we just see the engine change ?!

Hope that was clearer now,
Deino

Click to expand...

Actually I think I got it the first time, and I suspect that they may have "reengined" 2001 several times in the past year or so. Sometimes manufacturers will operate two types of engines in the same airframe during testing to get flight test time in the real world. I think it was likely a DC-9, but in the distant past, when turbo fans where being developed, a test aircraft had a turbo-jet on one pylon and a prototype turbo fan on the other. As I think about it, one was actually a multi-bladed turbo prop?

MiG-29 said:

They are game changers in terms of tactical conventional cability, not strategic or nuclear.
The USA had B-2s but the B-2 fleet won`t stop SLBM fire from Submarines of artillery nuclear shells from being fired.
The B-2 even does not guarantee the ability to find mobile all ICBM launchers.

I mean the B-2 can change a war where there is no real chance of total nuclear war and only with a conventionally armed adversary.

Same is J-20, the J-20 might be able to down a F-22 or F-35 but it won`t stop an ICBM in flight or a SLBM in flight or deep in the sea from being launched or a nuclear armed artillery shell in flight.

So as the US in the 1990s knew, they know the Russians did not worry too much about the B-2, simply because the B-2 does not guarrantee unvulnerability to nuclear response.

Plus today IR detectors are able to detect stealth aircraft and new SAM like S-400 and even S-500 allow for longer ranges of engagements due to better radar and IR detectors and better preformance of missiles.

So having a stealth fighter is not a guarantee at all, even in air combat Rafale or Su-35 might be able to down stealth fighters.

So the J-20 of course has a big impact in conventional war, but in won`t change the ability of the nation deploying it of avoiding nuclear holocaust

Click to expand...

You're right that conventional fighters still have a chance to down stealth fighters such as F-22(of course at a higher cost), but as for game-changing, these tools actually serve strategic usages(just not nuclear)
ASBMs as game changer would be primarily reducing USN CBGs' confidence and freedoms in WPTO(Western Pacific Theater of Operations) significantly. ASBMs are never meant as nuclear deterrent, but rather as A2/AD and this already have sufficient influence on the strategic picture that Washington needs to reconsider their tactics.

F-22, J-20 are also as well. There are never 100% guaranteed destruction of adversary WMD stockpiles, as WMDs have become easier to transport and conceal and states with advanced capabilities either possess more sophisticated means to protect or retain Second Strike capabilities. However, the question has never been about the final nuclear exchange: it's more about conventional strategic aspects that these game-changers imply. Stealth fighters mean the capabilities to perform Deep Strike and as force multipliers. Furthermore, the distinct stealth in their characteristics also meant they have unique asymmetric advantage against most conventional forces and also prolonged chances of survivability(due to evasion with their stealth as both offensive and defensive usages). All of these are sufficient to change not just the tide of wars, but complete campaigns, from merely specific elements such as air dominance to crippling enemy air auxiliary support(such as AWACS, refuel), air defense(conducting SEAD), targeting C3,C4SIR capabilities, or severely hampering/harassing enemy conventional forces with great effectiveness. These all place crucial components towards the strategic tactics and placements of forces in a theater. F-22 was a trump card with significant gains over American adversaries for not only these reasons, but also since US was the only country on Earth possessing these weapons at the time, this greatly boosted American military power and dominance. (Compare a room full of unarmed people and one person with a machine gun) This was an additional strategic benefit the US had: monopoly of this power and capabilities. These also played as part of American strategic military capabilities. However the emergence of T-50, J-20 meant something new: no longer was the US the only player with these capabilities, but now these 2 other countries have them as well. In addition to being able to do everything the F-22 can do, the T-50 and J-20 also play a new role and capability:countering the F-22. (Snipers are used for countering snipers) J-20 also serves as part of A2/AD again, therefore encompassing a very crucial strategic component.

J-20 2001 + 2001

Oh god, not that bloody hangar again with tons of J-20s around it.

I'm following this thread like a dog for the first decent pics of 2002, preferably on the same flighline as 2001, come on Chengdu folks shows us the new "dragon"!