J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Player99 said:

I see. But that's to say that they still can navalize the current J-20, isn't it?

Click to expand...

To go from Su-27 to Su-33 Sukhoi beefed up the structure and the undercarriage, which might be done with J-20, but they also shortened the tail sting and you cannot similarly shorten J-20, so you would have to design an extending undercarriage. That too can be done, theoretically - it has been done before, not only with the front leg of F-4 - but I doubt you could find space in the J-20 to store such a complicated extending main leg. And you would really be adding a lot of weight. So, no, it is much better to start with a clean computer screen.
It is possible that #31001 is really an air force adaptation of an aircraft designed for use from aircraft carriers, without the tail hook, without the folding wing tips, with a lighter structure and with larger main wheels, but close enough to represent the carrier aircraft in early testing. But it would be primarily a naval aircraft as the F-4 Phantom II was a naval aircraft that was later adapted to use by air forces. Perhaps.

Air Force Brat said:

This aircraft is a PLAAF flagship, as such it has been designed for the A2A role primarily, heavy naval equipment is not in the cards for this chick, as master delft has pointed out the gear is too far forward and short legged to bring it aboard ship. To change that that would ruin its mass centralization, which would compromise its manueverability, The J-31 is to be your Navy fighter, to the engineers eye it is obvious, and it has been designed to fullfill this role, with gear and plenty of wing for its size, and stealth shaping. Wish our own Navy had gone ahead with a Navalized Raptor, but alas they choose a different path, putting their money on JSF, the J-31 shows us what might have been, right Jeffy?

Click to expand...

All right then. Now time for some old rumors:

1. The J-31 has a sibling dedicated to the Navy.

2. Chengdu also has a Naval version of 5th Gen.

I would feel that's too much money and resources to throw in fighter jets development. China has so many other things to catch up with after all. But if the rumor or rumors are true, who am I to be unhappy about them?

As far as I can tell, the turn is 270 degrees, not 360, so if you extrapolate from that it's 27 degrees per second instantaneous turn.

In any case, the plane is too close to its minimum speed for the turn rate to mean anything; if you look at how closely the aircraft turns, one is surprised it doesn't simply drop out of the sky. The J-20, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be particularly remarkable aerodynamically under the present circumstances. It still wants more powerful engines and engines with TVC for us to see its true performance.

Player99 said:

And you take on that would be? ... For example, what might be the Gs it sustained during that half turn?

Click to expand...

I did try to estimate the G in the half turn but it turns out to be quite a bit over what a pilot can stand, so I figure it must the error in my trying to judge the distance by eye alone. (I didn't use a ruler.)

36th test flight on Nov 5th

[video=youtube;Tk2eXfvLtSs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk2eXfvLtSs[/video]

Inst said:

As far as I can tell, the turn is 270 degrees, not 360, so if you extrapolate from that it's 27 degrees per second instantaneous turn.

In any case, the plane is too close to its minimum speed for the turn rate to mean anything; if you look at how closely the aircraft turns, one is surprised it doesn't simply drop out of the sky. The J-20, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be particularly remarkable aerodynamically under the present circumstances. It still wants more powerful engines and engines with TVC for us to see its true performance.

Click to expand...

Well, I'll bet some people in some corners of the world will be very pleased to hear your comment on this Made in China clunker...

Quickie said:

I did try to estimate the G in the half turn but it turns out to be quite a bit over what a pilot can stand, so I figure it must the error in my trying to judge the distance by eye alone. (I didn't use a ruler.)

Click to expand...

Hehe... I guess most of us volunteer military watchers are just Eyexperts anyway.

AFB:

I think the way I'd prefer to think of the J-20 is as a developmental aircraft. It's designed to be upgraded and for its capabilities to transform dramatically when upgraded with the latest technology.

With the current level of technology, it's a pure interceptor. It doesn't have enough T/W / maneuverability to be extremely capable as a dogfighter.

With improved engines, it's an air superiority aircraft. Without T/W being the limiter on the aircraft, it should be an extremely competent interceptor, with strong radar and BVR capabilities mixed with high degrees of agility in trans-sonic.

With improved engines and mature TVC, then, you could potentially rework the aircraft to drop the tailfins altogether and end up with a 6th-generation-like tailfinless aircraft with enhanced stealth and agility.

Same applies to the J-31; the J-31 in its default form is a minimum stealth aircraft with extremely unambitious goals. All you need is to make sure the engines work, the FBW is reliable, and you have a decent AESA and you're good to go. You have a low-cost F-35 clone which enables people to obtain minimum stealth bombardment and stealth BVR capabilities.

Unlike the F-35, however, the J-31 has twin engines, allowing you to install TVC on it at a later date. It won't be able to beat the F-22, but it would be quite capable of giving the F-35 a run for its money at severely reduced cost.

so sorry please, but this is the least flattering angle for the j-20!