J-20... The New Generation Fighter

siegecrossbow said:

So he isn't gonna end Kanwa's publication till 8-10 years later no?

Click to expand...

Basically what he said about the J-20 are what we already been saying over the last week or so. And look at his 2nd last paragraph, he claimed the J-20 is still nowhere near the 4th-gen standard set by West: no super-cruise capability, no TVC, no AESA radar.

That means, his claim is still pretty much ironclad, unless within the coming 6 years (the duration of the wager) or less CAC shoved those 3 humble pies down his throat. But then again, I wonder if everyone are that good memory...

siegecrossbow said:

^^ I think videos got censored or something. People definitely took videos but no one dared to put them up yet.

Click to expand...

Agreed, if so many pics gets out then there's no way video weren't taken, and I did posted a screencap last week, and that was taken from somewhere elevated, with assuming good view of the back of the J-20.

As to why vid were censored, or at least nobody yet dared to put it up, I may have a theory: vid can be very revealing to how the control surface and other moving parts operates, and that's beyond what the CAC/PLAAF willing to let out at this time. As I've said before, those ground tests thus far (and the "looking the other way" by censors) were more of a "attention getting" move on their part, showcasing China's capability even under arms embargo and Russian's lukewarm attitude in technology transfers.

As to somebody said earlier about the probability of China make deal with Iran if and when the production model of J-20 is "golden", my take is unlikely, at least not before F-35 enter IDF/AF battle order - if I remember correctly, part of Israel's deal with China is not to make Iran too strong.

On the other hand, I think the US not particularly concern: it'd be at least 10 years for J-20 to reach significant number to make any difference, but by then stealth UCAV is coming into play, and the "lower-tier" F-22, F-35, F/A-18E/F are still in sufficient numbers to negate whatever advantage China hopes to gain with J-20 or whatever "lo-end" partner model would spin from it.

Certainly now it'd push the neighbors towards Sukhol and Lockheed Martin, flocking for the T-50 and F-35...meanwhile, Taiwan still woes over F-16C/Ds...

kroko said:

If that happens, then it will only show that PLA cant have any kind of transparency. PLA loses if its transparent, loses if its not. Better to be more opaque in the future, to the detriment of information.



I wonder if the pilot intended to fly the plane but found out that the engine didnt have enough power.

Seriously, the question of the engine is crucial. This plane seems bigger than su-27/j-11b/T-50/F-22, and it needs a high power engine, and china has problems on this area. I dont tire of stressing this.

Click to expand...

are you kidding? J-20 designer is a fool ? see the photo below, how big is the J-11BS, there is no thing to prove J-20 prototype is bigger than Flanks. the engine just used for prototype flight test, not for supersonic cruise yet. they will replace WS-10G, later will replace WS-15 or 117C. J-20 sevice in PLAAF at least 5-6 years, PLAAF deputy commander HO said it will take about 8-10 years, so, you don't need to worry about.

maozedong said:

are you kidding? J-20 designer is a fool ? see the photo below, how big is the J-11BS, there is no thing to prove J-20 prototype is bigger than Flanks. the engine just used for prototype flight test, not for supersonic cruise yet. they will replace WS-10G, later will replace WS-15 or 117C. J-20 sevice in PLAAF at least 5-6 years, PLAAF deputy commander HO said it will take about 8-10 years, so, you don't need to worry about.

Click to expand...

There is a whole thread on FY about how F-15, F-22, F-23, and Su-27 must all be bombers since they were so "large" compared to humans.

challenge said:

why do chengdu engineer opt for canard,when it was consider "un-stealthness".or it is possible that the final production model will include horizontal tail fin.

Click to expand...

Chengdu did tests with scaled models in a dark room, and found that effects on stealth by the canards are negligible. In addition, in the initial stage of a BVR engagement, the aircraft should be in cruise flight with almost no deflection in canards. So, effects on stealth by canard deflection is also found to be negligble.

kroko said:

If that happens, then it will only show that PLA cant have any kind of transparency. PLA loses if its transparent, loses if its not. Better to be more opaque in the future, to the detriment of information.



I wonder if the pilot intended to fly the plane but found out that the engine didnt have enough power.

Seriously, the question of the engine is crucial. This plane seems bigger than su-27/j-11b/T-50/F-22, and it needs a high power engine, and china has problems on this area. I dont tire of stressing this.

Click to expand...

And it's not like we're not aware of it either. >_>

The plane probably isn't bigger than a flanker, maybe a little smaller -- and they don't need a F119 class engine to get it off the ground. Non supercruising engines will still give it enough thrust to get airborne, it'll just limit a bit of everything else.

challenge said:

why do chengdu engineer opt for canard,when it was consider "un-stealthness".or it is possible that the final production model will include horizontal tail fin.

Click to expand...

It could be just on the prototype, and lots of other people on other forums are adamant canards are very bad for stealth.

I suppose we'll see in a few years with the production model -- if the canards remain it must mean CAC have either found them to be negligible in contributing RCS or that they found a work around the problem.

Bltizo said:

It could be just on the prototype, and lots of other people on other forums are adamant canards are very bad for stealth.

I suppose we'll see in a few years with the production model -- if the canards remain it must mean CAC have either found them to be negligible in contributing RCS or that they found a work around the problem.

Click to expand...

Something I'm not clear on, is if canards are bad for stealth, then are conventional horizontal tails like those on the F-22 just as bad?

I mean, I could see how having a conventional layout plus canards would be bad, but in a sense, the J-20 has no more control horizontal control surfaces sticking out than the F-22, they're just in front of the wings as opposed to behind.

Could someone clarify this?

maozedong said:

are you kidding? J-20 designer is a fool ? see the photo below, how big is the J-11BS, there is no thing to prove J-20 prototype is bigger than Flanks. the engine just used for prototype flight test, not for supersonic cruise yet. they will replace WS-10G, later will replace WS-15 or 117C. J-20 sevice in PLAAF at least 5-6 years, PLAAF deputy commander HO said it will take about 8-10 years, so, you don't need to worry about.

Click to expand...

Well this comparition could indicate something about j-20 size



It certaily looks bigger than F-22

kroko said:

Well this comparition could indicate something about j-20 size

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It certaily looks bigger than F-22

Click to expand...

That was a really bad comparison. It assumed cockpit size would remain the same for all three planes, which is not necessarily true. Without that there's no way to guarantee those images are scaled correctly.

kroko said:

Well this comparition could indicate something about j-20 size

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It certaily looks bigger than F-22

Click to expand...

This comparison is inaccurate -- there was a better one a few pages back comparing the J-20 with a J-10 and using a truck as a measuring rod. The concensus was that it was 19-20 meters give or take.