J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Bltizo said:

Well 2001-2002/3 are definitely not equipped with WS-15. If the next engine aboard 2004 is another interim engine I would expect it to be higher performing than whatever engine (al-31 or WS-10 or whatever) aboard 2201-2002/3 now.
If the new engine is an interim engine, it would suggest that it's not Russian (if china really wanted al41 or 117s I expect they would have had it by now, or at least the order would have been announced).

But tbh the logical belief given those supposed big shrimp statements would be to believe 2004's engines (if new), are WS-15.
But I remember rumours a year or so back about how 2003 was meant to feature WS-15 as well... So who knows.

Click to expand...

it might not be WS-15. It could be a higher thrust version of WS-10 (maybe with TVC?). According to the rumours, the first J-20 was installed with WS-10 engine that was switched to higher thrust, but with dramatically less life span. So, it would make sense that if WS-10 upgraded is ready, you try that out first.

Frankly, we haven't even heard about long duration testing with WS-15. And even if it's ready, they are more likely to test it out on a mature platform like J-10 or J-11 first.

tphuang said:

it might not be WS-15. It could be a higher thrust version of WS-10 (maybe with TVC?). According to the rumours, the first J-20 was installed with WS-10 engine that was switched to higher thrust, but with dramatically less life span. So, it would make sense that if WS-10 upgraded is ready, you try that out first.

Frankly, we haven't even heard about long duration testing with WS-15. And even if it's ready, they are more likely to test it out on a mature platform like J-10 or J-11 first.

Click to expand...

Yes but what would be the motive for developing a higher thrust WS-10 if the prototypes are equipped with an uprated WS-10 but with lower lifespan.

I mean if that is what happens it will imply there must be a platform that will equip a higher thrust WS-10, so that would be the first batch of J-20 being equipped with WS-10...


And I don't think we've heard anything about WS-15 for ages. I wonder if there's a purposeful blanket on info leakage. Who knows what stage of development it's at.

Bltizo said:

And I don't think we've heard anything about WS-15 for ages. I wonder if there's a purposeful blanket on info leakage. Who knows what stage of development it's at.

Click to expand...

I wonder if they have encountered serious dificulties with the development of WS-15. Who knows? perhabs maya can tell us.

Could it be a mixed of both approaches ie the first J-20/A production batch/es being equipped with uprated WS-10s to ensure the stated 2017/18 timeline is meet to achieve IOC, with or without TVC, with subsequent, production switching to a J-20/B with WS-15 + TVC.

It still makes sense for a uprated WS-10 to be developed, especially one with a normal lifespan / TBO, to be incorporated into J-10B, J-15, J-16 and even an AESA equipped J-11C (SU-35 analogue), replacing the current J-11B production run.

While the J-20 is an awesome plane, production ready-aircraft won't be available for at least another 5-7 years, therefore it make sense to squeeze the maximize performance out of existing airframe designs through upgrades to radar, EW systems, introduction of composites and uprated engines to keep them competitive with Western 4++ Gen aircraft...

Bltizo said:

Yes but what would be the motive for developing a higher thrust WS-10 if the prototypes are equipped with an uprated WS-10 but with lower lifespan.

I mean if that is what happens it will imply there must be a platform that will equip a higher thrust WS-10, so that would be the first batch of J-20 being equipped with WS-10...


And I don't think we've heard anything about WS-15 for ages. I wonder if there's a purposeful blanket on info leakage. Who knows what stage of development it's at.

Click to expand...

The higher thrust WS-10 has been in development for many years. It's definitely further along than WS-15. You can put it on J-10B, J-15, J-16. There are plenty of platforms that can use it. And the first batch of J-20 might end up with upgraded J-10 if WS-15 is not ready.

Look up the engine thread and read what Maya wrote about WS-15. He is as good source as any on it regarding when this project is expected to be ready. I think putting WS-15 on J-20 in 2013 sounds really ahead of curve based on the stuff I've read before.

kyuryu said:

Could it be a mixed of both approaches ie the first J-20/A production batch/es being equipped with uprated WS-10s to ensure the stated 2017/18 timeline is meet to achieve IOC, with or without TVC, with subsequent, production switching to a J-20/B with WS-15 + TVC.

It still makes sense for a uprated WS-10 to be developed, especially one with a normal lifespan / TBO, to be incorporated into J-10B, J-15, J-16 and even an AESA equipped J-11C (SU-35 analogue), replacing the current J-11B production run.

While the J-20 is an awesome plane, production ready-aircraft won't be available for at least another 5-7 years, therefore it make sense to squeeze the maximize performance out of existing airframe designs through upgrades to radar, EW systems, introduction of composites and uprated engines to keep them competitive with Western 4++ Gen aircraft...

Click to expand...

I can't imagine there will be another flanker derivative beyond J-15 and J-16, and the PLAAF don't exactly need an Su-35 "analogue". J-11B retrofitted with AESA and modern A2A weapons could give it a run in A2A and J-16 would have greater A2G capability. No need to put the two onto one airframe.

I can imagine there will be an upgraded WS-10 version in time, but I'm not sure if existing fighters will be necessarily re engined; do USAF F-16 and F-15s get re engined with new versions of their engines?

And the IOC date stated would be a fighter with the "4S" in that famous CCTV interview. I wonder if J-20 can supercruise and manouver competitively with uprated WS-10s, if the engine exists. Personally I'm still of the belief that the engine equipped aboard the next prototype will be WS-15, until something else comes along to direct otherwise.

tphuang said:

The higher thrust WS-10 has been in development for many years. It's definitely further along than WS-15. You can put it on J-10B, J-15, J-16. There are plenty of platforms that can use it. And the first batch of J-20 might end up with upgraded J-10 if WS-15 is not ready.

Look up the engine thread and read what Maya wrote about WS-15. He is as good source as any on it regarding when this project is expected to be ready. I think putting WS-15 on J-20 in 2013 sounds really ahead of curve based on the stuff I've read before.

Click to expand...

Well given the IOC date is 2017-2019, 2013 does seem a little early for WS-15 to be equipped aboard a prototype; 2015 will probably be the latest time where a WS-15 J-20 must show up to let the IOC date make sense, given it'll take about two years at least for the final prototype/preproduction planes to be tested.

Hmm the last update was a while ago though.

Someone on a Chinese forum posted papers on the subject of canard and RCS. The first paper discusses methods for reducing RCS on an aircraft with canard configuration.

《低RCS 飞行器外形设计实践》 航空学报 1995年


On the basis of the canard configuration a contour stealth design including chiefly the wing, the fuselage and their connection type is projected. The prime project of a blended wing body vehicle with canard is provided and through the change of the fuselage head form and the different fin disposals, the radar cross section (RCS) is optimized. The average value of RCS and the value of RCS in the ± 45 ° front sector for different designs are illustrated. The model measurement proves that the project having a sharp head fuselage and 30 ° angle double fin has the minimum value of RCS. The wind tunnel test to the model with RCS optimized proved that the vehicle project has excellent aerodynamic characteristics such as high lift curve slope, up to 26° stalling angle, high lift / drag ratio equal to 8, and also has low RCS value in the front sector and in the lateral sector.







A second paper discusses the result of an experiment conducted inside an anechoic chamber. Wooden models with tin foil coating were used in the experiment. Among the findings is that the canard configuration tested has lower RCS than the traditional configuration tested.

《带边条后掠翼融合体隐身布局的应用研究》 气动实验与测量控制 1995年


The third paper is more recent, which studied canard geometry and its effects on RCS. The first three images show the effect of sweep and span on RCS value. Forth and fifth images show deflection of canard and its influence on RCS. The last image shows the effect of applying RAM on the canard.

《鸭翼电磁散射特性分析与RCS减缩方法研究》 航空计算技术2010

Now, some information on aerodynamics. The first paper concluded canard configuration has advantages over traditional configuration. I don't have time to translate everything, so I will just summarize.

1. Canard can provide better pitch-down moment compared to tailplane. This is because tailplane needs positive deflection at high angle-of-attack to push the nose down, resulting in stall. Canard uses negative deflection to bring the nose down, thus doesn't stall.
2. Canard has reduced supersonic drag as compared to tailplane. The amount of shift of aerodynamic center is reduced on a canard configuration, resulting in easier time to trim the aircraft for the canard.
3. TVC performs better with canard, in that mass does not concentrated on the aft portion of the aircraft thus enhances trimming efficiency. Canard when combined with TVC can enhance lift, which is not achievable with traditional configuration.
4. This point reiterates that canard can provide better trimming than tailplane. Furthermore, differential canard enables the control of side slip, which is not achievable with traditional configuration.
5. Relax stability actually makes trimming more difficult for tailplane because of shorter moment arm. Canard doesn't have such problem. Furthermore, canard can work in conjunction with flaps, reducing the area needed for trimming.
6. Canard can be used with forward-swept wings. There is no example of aircraft that uses forward swept wing and tailplane at the same time.

《近距耦合鸭式布局气动研究进展》 空气动力学学报 2003





The second paper also compared canard configuration with traditional configuration. Among the finding is that canard configuration provides better yaw capability over traditional configuration at high angle-of-attack.

《带边条后掠翼融合体隐身布局的应用研究》 气动实验与测量控制 1995年

Engineer said:

There is no example of aircraft that uses forward swept wing and tailplane at the same time.

Click to expand...

Isn't the Su-47 a FSW with tailplanes? Do they mean something more specific?

Engineer said:

[*]Canard can be used with forward-swept wings. There is no example of aircraft that uses forward swept wing and tailplane at the same time.

Click to expand...

The X29 would disagree.