J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Re: J-20 Mighty Dragon pictorial potpourri

Air Force Brat said:

Let say thats true how do we know, lets say thats not true, how does the PLAAF show the world its not, by showing us the J-20 2002 flying, I really was rather tremendously suprised by how much Chengdu flew 2001, check some of my old posts, it wouldn't be the first aircraft with structural issues, and it won't be the last. Reportedly the T-50 also has issues with the rear center fuselage and vertical stabs, true? who would know? The F-35B has an aluminum bulkhead that is experiencing stress cracking, the aluminum replaced the Titanium to save weight. Soooooh, we all know the -------'s would never ever never ever tell a lie to make someone else look bad, now would they? Why noooooh.

Click to expand...

Well I look at this way... The US accuses China of replacing parts on US military hardware with counterfeits. The Russians then accuse that Chinese counterfeit parts as for the reason why so many IAF Migs crash. I read too that the T-50 has structural problems. Now all of the sudden they say the J-20 is experiencing structural problems. See the pattern? I read that India's first T-50 has been delayed by at least two years. Are we going to see a story soon that the Russians claim the J-20 will be delayed by at least two years?

anybody else find it curiously frustrating that information on the progress of china's military turbofan engine development seems to be the hardest of all to come by?

seems to me that, absent significant progress in development AND production in this domain, there's not much merit to any talk of progress in military aircraft development in general.

Subedei said:

anybody else find it curiously frustrating that information on the progress of china's military turbofan engine development seems to be the hardest of all to come by?

seems to me that, absent significant progress in development AND production in this domain, there's not much merit to any talk of progress in military aircraft development in general.

Click to expand...

Industrial secrets I guess. They don't like to reveal too much of the new stuff to the world.

Subedei said:

anybody else find it curiously frustrating that information on the progress of china's military turbofan engine development seems to be the hardest of all to come by?

seems to me that, absent significant progress in development AND production in this domain, there's not much merit to any talk of progress in military aircraft development in general.

Click to expand...

Jet engines are the backbone of modern weaponry. All state of the art ships, bombers, fighter jets, helicopters, even tanks are wholly dependent on those engines. Jet engines are like the CPU of computers, its performance directly determine how powerful the whole system will be. Although fighter jets became more reliant on avionics and stealth feature, but to this day, they are still heavily dependent on agility, range and payload, all of which is directly related to how powerful and efficient the engine is.

It is the same thing with tanks, which is determined by how much armour and how big of a gun it can carry. Maintaining high speed and agility requires powerful engines. This goes on and on for ships, helicopters, cargo planes and bombers.

If J-20 doesn't have a good engines, God forbid, but in case it does happen, say that WS-15 program was cancelled or it's not meeting expectation, then J-20 will just be a mediocre 4/5th generation fighter at its maximum potential. On the contrary, I have heard F22's air-frame is actually not that aerodynamically efficient (maybe due to sacrifices made for stealth), even inferior to some 3rd generation fighters. But due to the behemoths thrust from its engines, it not just able to super-cruise, but also it's one of the most agile fighter out there, if not currently the most agile.

That pretty much shows the US way... The Phantom (f4) was called the flying brick... You just put two huge engines with enough trust and you can fly it... Same goes for F16... The raised cockpit is drag-explosion... Add thrust and you frankly do not care...

I agree that the F22 has stealth first and then drag... The Flanker design is one of the most superb designs... It has to do with the basic rule that compressed air needs the same space all over the length... If you make the body bigger and bigger you will have to compress the surrounding air more and more.... But indeed the F22 has that much thrust you frankly do not care... Let me put it even simpler... Everyone knows that the round exhaust is more efficient... Yet the F22 an handle the TVC nozzles in different shape cause it has enough extra...

Given the same engine, an airplane designed for both maneuverability and stealth will always have less maneuverability than a plane designed for maneuverability alone.

Can't wait to see CCTV officially declassify J-20 and make a documentary on it, as it was done similarly for JH-7, J-8II and J10.

J-20 won't get declassified so quickly. The J-10 is the low or at least the medium in the Chinese hi-lo mix, and it's a 4th generation fighter in an era where 4.5 is the norm and the 5th generation exists.

I'd say you'd have to give it at least 5 years past the IOC before you get more than simply rumor.

Regarding the US thrust advantage, additional thrust on an unaerodynamic airframe is not necessarily a good thing, because fuel efficiency scales to some degree with more powerful engines. At the end of the day, an engine is just a way to convert chemical energy to mechanical energy and increased T/W without reducing drag will limit the range of your fighter aircraft.

On the other hand, canard-based approaches necessarily add drag, so there's not so much of an advantage for Eurocanards, canarded flankers, or the J-10 either.

Munir said:

That pretty much shows the US way... The Phantom (f4) was called the flying brick... You just put two huge engines with enough trust and you can fly it... Same goes for F16... The raised cockpit is drag-explosion... Add thrust and you frankly do not care...

I agree that the F22 has stealth first and then drag... The Flanker design is one of the most superb designs... It has to do with the basic rule that compressed air needs the same space all over the length... If you make the body bigger and bigger you will have to compress the surrounding air more and more.... But indeed the F22 has that much thrust you frankly do not care... Let me put it even simpler... Everyone knows that the round exhaust is more efficient... Yet the F22 an handle the TVC nozzles in different shape cause it has enough extra...

Click to expand...

Guys, here we are on the J-20 thread and what are we talking about, the only true fifth gen on the planet, the real benchmark for a high performance fifth gen fighter. Yes the engines are very, very good, and yes this design saw its genesis prior to 1986, this aircraft does exactly what it was designed to do, but we have to pick at it, this is not good, thats so bad, Blah, Blah Blah. Dr. Song really sets the F-22 up as the benchmark the J-20 will have to meet and beat, did they, will they, can they? Prolly not, but the J-20 is also a very good airplane, designed by a brilliant and honest man, the Faboulous Flanker is a beauty queen, and if like her older sisters will not dissapoint. You are on to the key that Dr. Song called a long time ago, that the F119 is awesome, but please don't sell this airframe short, if you've seen the tactical demo at an airshow and you disagree then bring it on, but if you haven't please reserve judgement, when you do see it, you'll be scraping your jaw off the floor with a putty knife, it is "that good". When they closed the production, bad guys all over the world where smiling, and every little fighter pilot, who might have to face a Raptor Mano-A-Mano, laid their head on the pillow that night and smiled with the realization that they really might live to see 35! Yes, I'm sorry, and yes I'm smirking, but as the old Hayabusa commercial used to say, "it aint braggin if its true". Now lets get the tall man on here and let him tell us about their bird, come on PLAAF, we want our baby back. It is a very good airplane, and it will be a formidable adversary, but we need more info to really know much more than we already do, but you're all correct in assuming that it will need a good engine with TVC to meet its design potential.

Oh and for the nut job that thinks it is an F-4, slap yourself, its the Airplane designed to correct the F-15s failings, which are few, it is a fighter pilots fantasy and you can qoute me on that. Cheers AF Brat

Inst said:

J-20 won't get declassified so quickly. The J-10 is the low or at least the medium in the Chinese hi-lo mix, and it's a 4th generation fighter in an era where 4.5 is the norm and the 5th generation exists.

I'd say you'd have to give it at least 5 years past the IOC before you get more than simply rumor.

Regarding the US thrust advantage, additional thrust on an unaerodynamic airframe is not necessarily a good thing, because fuel efficiency scales to some degree with more powerful engines. At the end of the day, an engine is just a way to convert chemical energy to mechanical energy and increased T/W without reducing drag will limit the range of your fighter aircraft.

On the other hand, canard-based approaches necessarily add drag, so there's not so much of an advantage for Eurocanards, canarded flankers, or the J-10 either.

Click to expand...

On your first point your golden, the J-20 will remain top secret for many years, many of the raptors capabilities are still classified,for what its worth the F-22 is designed with supermanueverability, that is achieved by lots of lift, when you creat lift, you create d-r-a-g, the Raptor is aerodynamically fabulous, to state otherwise is forum boy nonsense. Every airplane is a reflection of the vision that created it, the Raptor is exactly what it has designed to be, the number 1 air superiority airplane in the world, period, excalmation point. It is fast in supercruise, at mach 1.8 it is much faster than its near peers, and more fuel efficient as it doesn't require afterburner to push it past mach one and beyond, it will pull 9.5 gs continuously, can you? So at the end of the day, these beautifull airplanes all require highly skilled men and women to build them and their powerplants, and machines and tooling that hold tolerances that are nearly impossible!