J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Air Force Brat said:

I hope you're right, and it will reinforce what I have said all along, but as I have stated elsewhere the supermanueverability qual to be fifth gen is now up in the air? We're not going to see the J-20 standing on its tail at airshows without TVC, ain't gonna happen. US has given the F-35 outstanding manueverability but left off the TVC, I wouldn't be surprised to see the J-20 go into serial production without it either, the Eng may be right after all as he is about lots of other stuff. In my opinion the J-20 objectives as of today are stealthy, fast, with the ability to supercruise, outstanding manueverability, advanced avionics and weapons systems. The F-22 has issues with life support because its capability to manuever is beyond that of many pilots to tolerate, and no I don't think the answer is UAV, I do think that is why many of the newer aircraft are where they are today. Its also the main reason that Sino Air is NOT enamored with TVC, otherwise we would have already seen it on one of the Flanker variants?

Click to expand...

If the J-20 weren't meant to be super-maneuverable they would not have gone with the design they did, so no, I don't think that requirement is scrapped.

I think they simply didn't adopt a TVC capable engine in the flanker because it was unnecessary. Installing TVC on the flanker would have meant more flight tests on an engine they only just started cautiously introducing (the WS-10A). A lot of reasons why any marginal gain in performance would have been neutralized by concerns for potential logistical headaches.

Engineer's assessment that they could start production with a different engine from the WS-15 isn't something I disagree with, but that scenario has been thrown around as a worse case scenario in case the WS-15 poses the same problems in its developmental process that the WS-10 has. There's some good chance that that won't be the case, so I'm also open to the possibility that by the time the J-20 moves into production everything about the aircraft will be finalized, including engines. Right now we simply can't presume either which way for sure because we have had zero news on the WS-15. There were occasional trickles of information up till around the J-20's revelation. Then nothing.

I should also say that the TVC requirement is necessary for more than maneuverability. They also need TVC for cruise flight to minimize surface deflections.

latenlazy said:

If the J-20 weren't meant to be super-maneuverable they would not have gone with the design they did, so no, I don't think that requirement is scrapped.

I think they simply didn't adopt a TVC capable engine in the flanker because it was unnecessary. Installing TVC on the flanker would have meant more flight tests on an engine they only just started cautiously introducing (the WS-10A). A lot of reasons why any marginal gain in performance would have been neutralized by concerns for potential logistical headaches.

Engineer's assessment that they could start production with a different engine from the WS-15 isn't something I disagree with, but that scenario has been thrown around as a worse case scenario in case the WS-15 poses the same problems in its developmental process that the WS-10 has. There's some good chance that that won't be the case, so I'm also open to the possibility that by the time the J-20 moves into production everything about the aircraft will be finalized, including engines. Right now we simply can't presume either which way for sure because we have had zero news on the WS-15. There were occasional trickles of information up till around the J-20's revelation. Then nothing.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said with the exception of my point about the Flanker, IF? they were in fact developing TVC, they WOULD be testing it on the Flanker, because the Flanker is a proven airframe and performs beautifully with TVC! IMHO, but also remember I Am the AFB, and I do have the Heart of a True Birdman! so in my own Humble opinion, they are not really interested in TVC, and it is likely the J-20 will enter serial production without it...........but, if Romney wins, big if, and if Romney did in fact put the F-22 back in production, an even bigger if?, that Will all change! Lots of ifs?

Air Force Brat said:

I agree with everything you said with the exception of my point about the Flanker, IF? they were in fact developing TVC, they WOULD be testing it on the Flanker, because the Flanker is a proven airframe and performs beautifully with TVC! IMHO, but also remember I Am the AFB, and I do have the Heart of a True Birdman! so in my own Humble opinion, they are not really interested in TVC, and it is likely the J-20 will enter serial production without it...........but, if Romney wins, big if, and if Romney did in fact put the F-22 back in production, an even bigger if?, that Will all change! Lots of ifs?

Click to expand...

One of the logistical headaches of installing TVC into the flanker would be writing new FCS. That alone probably makes it not worthwhile.

We already know China has TVC technology. They demonstrated a TVC capable WS-10 in 2006. The individual testing of the nozzles can be performed without an air frame. Furthermore, it would seem pointless to do flight performance tests of a TVC capable engine on a different air frame from the one it's intended to be installed in. Then again, no I'm no expert.

latenlazy said:

One of the logistical headaches of installing TVC into the flanker would be writing new FCS. That alone probably makes it not worthwhile.

We already know China has TVC technology. They demonstrated a TVC capable WS-10 in 2006. The individual testing of the nozzles can be performed without an air frame. Furthermore, it would seem pointless to do flight performance tests of a TVC capable engine on a different air frame from the one it's intended to be installed in. Then again, no I'm no expert.

Click to expand...

My point is that they must not be interested in it, or it would be on the Flanker, period, exclamation point! The Flanker is still a big deal to the PLAAF and PLAN, and it is quite capable and their go to bird for the immediate future. While I anticipate that the J-20 will eventually be their top line Air Force bird, and I anticipate that the F-60 will become their stealthy naval fighter, the J11, J15, J16 all say that I'm right. No, I have not forgotten about the J-10, I promise.
The J-20 is in full scale development stage and making outstanding progress, while I wish I were wrong, I doubt very seriously that it will ever incorporate that tech into the aircraft, or it would be on another platform in full scale development, I can almost certainly assure you that it is not, I do wish I were wrong, and in fact I could be, but after all I am the AFB.

Does anyone have any knowledge on general aircraft prototype testing stages?

Such as, first they test aerodynamic, then sensor, then weapon integration etc.... I'm sure this is open source information.

Just a question regarding no. 2002 ! Does anyone know when the last confirmed flight or at least sighting of that prototype was /or took place.

I have to admit even with these latest images I have a strange feeing that the airframe we've seen a few days ago is different to our "old" friend 2002. As such could it be that CAC indeed rolled out 2003 and in parallel prepared 2002 with the radar/radome changes ??

I can't think that it is so simple to change a radome + radar (if installed actually) so quick on a prototype ....

Deino

Deino said:

Just a question regarding no. 2002 ! Does anyone know when the last confirmed flight or at least sighting of that prototype was /or took place.

I have to admit even with these latest images I have a strange feeing that the airframe we've seen a few days ago is different to our "old" friend 2002. As such could it be that CAC indeed rolled out 2003 and in parallel prepared 2002 with the radar/radome changes ??

I can't think that it is so simple to change a radome + radar (if installed actually) so quick on a prototype ....

Deino

Click to expand...

I would imagine Deino that all the substructure was installed as the prototype was being built, even the wiring harness and possibly even the cockpit display, and its also possible that a ballast weight to duplicate the radar and antennae were mounted under the old nose cone. Even certified aircraft fly with ballast until avionics can be installed, as you know weight and balance of all aircraft is critical, but particularly a prototype that is establishing operating parameters, and may be operated outside of the aircrafts normal limits in order to set those safety zones. I believe for instance that when establishing the g limits, the aircraft is flown to 150% of those limits in order to have a margin for error?

J-20 Prototype-III, with grey nose-cone. Seems a bit longer than the previous two prototypes.

Well I was disappointed a bit because it reduces the chance we can see two J-20s up in the air at once in a pic.

Is it possible they're playing tricks? Remember how they were tricking watchers with the numbering of the first two 052Cs? There would be a number painted on the hull and then it was gone having people speculate there were more built. The first pics of the the "2003" did not have a number painted on where it was usually (away from the removed panels) and now you see "2002" with a gray nose cone.

AssassinsMace said:

Well I was disappointed a bit because it reduces the chance we can see two J-20s up in the air at once in a pic.

Is it possible they're playing tricks? Remember how they were tricking watchers with the numbering of the first two 052Cs? There would be a number painted on the hull and then it was gone having people speculate there were more built. The first pics of the the "2003" did not have a number painted on where it was usually (away from the removed panels) and now you see "2002" with a gray nose cone.

Click to expand...

I think we should wait it out for a few weeks and see if 2002 with the black nose returns. If it does, then we can confirm there are two 2002s with different noses. If many weeks pass and we only see the 2002 with the grey nose, then we'll have to assume there's only one 2002 and they just waited to fit the actual radar aboard.