J-20... The New Generation Fighter
- Thread starter Delbert
- Start date
- Status
Engineer
Major
By that lose definition, any military aircraft is a bomber. Surely you can roll dumb bombs out the end of a C-17? So, for classifying an aircraft, I think it is more important to look at what primary objective engineers have in mind when they designed the aircraft.
I think the canards in the Su-33 got their place because it was the simplest way of integrating them into the structure. While it may not be the most effective layout, it was the easiest option to just stick them to the lerx, wich happened to already be in plane with the wing. It's enough of additional lift producing surfaces to make carrier ops safe.
On the J-20 I believe they took a certain compromise in putting at least the actuators / mounts into the same plane as the main wing for frontal RCS reasons, while the canards are dihedral to get the vortices above the wing. The EF anhedral canards actually also make the tips almost end in plane with the main wing as well, contrary to Rafale or Gripen.
On conventional layouts, like the Raptor the complete controll surface, including mounts / actuators is hidden behind the main wing, contrary to canards, wich probably is another small issue for forntal RCS only. From the top / bottom / side it doesn't really matter though, I'd guess.
Role wise, somewhere else I came across the idea that the J-20 is another asset of China's area denial strategy. Even if it's just an interceptor, it will be able to deny fighting space for other forces, as it's presence must always be assumed.
While this is probably not the long term goal designers had in mind, I think the idea is a good starting point and a good initial capability for PLAAF. I then think later upgrades can focus more on the air superiority and then strike role.
After a few days, the J-20 looks bigger than it actually is, although it's still a rather big plane. But I think now it's a bit smaller than a Flanker, and it also looks really sleak to me. So I think it won't actually carry that much A-G ammo. Maybe a few precision weapons to attack high value targets, but nothing in quantity or AShM wise.
On the J-20 I believe they took a certain compromise in putting at least the actuators / mounts into the same plane as the main wing for frontal RCS reasons, while the canards are dihedral to get the vortices above the wing. The EF anhedral canards actually also make the tips almost end in plane with the main wing as well, contrary to Rafale or Gripen.
On conventional layouts, like the Raptor the complete controll surface, including mounts / actuators is hidden behind the main wing, contrary to canards, wich probably is another small issue for forntal RCS only. From the top / bottom / side it doesn't really matter though, I'd guess.
Role wise, somewhere else I came across the idea that the J-20 is another asset of China's area denial strategy. Even if it's just an interceptor, it will be able to deny fighting space for other forces, as it's presence must always be assumed.
While this is probably not the long term goal designers had in mind, I think the idea is a good starting point and a good initial capability for PLAAF. I then think later upgrades can focus more on the air superiority and then strike role.
After a few days, the J-20 looks bigger than it actually is, although it's still a rather big plane. But I think now it's a bit smaller than a Flanker, and it also looks really sleak to me. So I think it won't actually carry that much A-G ammo. Maybe a few precision weapons to attack high value targets, but nothing in quantity or AShM wise.
Last edited:
I moved the last two post in this thread to the link below.
J-20...The New Generation Fighter
bd popeye super moderator
J-20...The New Generation Fighter
bd popeye super moderator
And to think Flight Global's coverage of the Zhuhai airshow wasn't too bad... This article shows quite a bit of unprofessionalism tut tut.
vesicles
Colonel
Hi Guys,
I am back!!! Missed you guys so much!!! I'd been so busy with work in the past 5-6 months (trying to get a paper out before a competing lab does).
Any way, I am very excited about the J-20 news. It looks awesome.
I think we will still need J-10B. Because I think China will apply the same the Hi/Lo structure to its AF as the US and J-20 is definitely the high end of things, I think they will need J-10B as the low end backbone of the China AF. I don't think any nation can afford to make F-22/J-20 type of fighters as their backbone fighter. It's financially impossible.
Also, the 2012/2013 data is a little to ambitious. It's already 2011 and they haven't even flown the plane yet. They still need to spend some quality time to get the plane certified, etc...
Since I've been away for quite a while, I am a little confused of the designation of J-16. This is the first time I've heard it. I thought J-15 was the new conventional carrier-born fighter. So what is J-16 and why is China developing J-16 and J-20 at the same time?
Again, a little too ambitious to me. You mentioned China will stop making J-10 in 2013 and stop making J-16 in 2015. That's only 3 years after it enters service, according your ambitious prediction. Why would you think China would keep stopping the production of a good plane, like J-10 and J-16? A good plane can be production for a long time.
I am back!!! Missed you guys so much!!! I'd been so busy with work in the past 5-6 months (trying to get a paper out before a competing lab does).
Any way, I am very excited about the J-20 news. It looks awesome.
I think we will still need J-10B. Because I think China will apply the same the Hi/Lo structure to its AF as the US and J-20 is definitely the high end of things, I think they will need J-10B as the low end backbone of the China AF. I don't think any nation can afford to make F-22/J-20 type of fighters as their backbone fighter. It's financially impossible.
Also, the 2012/2013 data is a little to ambitious. It's already 2011 and they haven't even flown the plane yet. They still need to spend some quality time to get the plane certified, etc...
Since I've been away for quite a while, I am a little confused of the designation of J-16. This is the first time I've heard it. I thought J-15 was the new conventional carrier-born fighter. So what is J-16 and why is China developing J-16 and J-20 at the same time?
Again, a little too ambitious to me. You mentioned China will stop making J-10 in 2013 and stop making J-16 in 2015. That's only 3 years after it enters service, according your ambitious prediction. Why would you think China would keep stopping the production of a good plane, like J-10 and J-16? A good plane can be production for a long time.
SteelBird
Colonel
Seem few people would argue that the recent photos of J-20 are fake. Now, assume that it is true. Because the photos are taken from many different angles that they are hardly be PS. But... 1. the plane seem to be too big 2. too long 3. too narrow.
It should be around 20.5 meter long, not too long, considering Su-27 has a length of 22 meter.
And for being narrow, its because the supercrusie requirement, bascially long and narrow body/wing span are optimised against fighter at supersonic, see how F-22 also has a very narrow body.
Wide and "sparse" body will creat lots of drag for the fighters at supersonic phase, such kind of airframes, however, will give the fighter more lifting-ratio at sub-sonic phase, thus longer ferry range.
MwRYum
Major
Probably the problem of angle, but things would clear out once it takes to the sky, then the logic of its arrangement will be clear.
But my 2 cents to its size would be:
1. Engine-something as compact yet as powerful the West can have still out of reach for China
2. Weapon stores-if to utilize the current arsenal and not to wait for "J-20 tailored" versions, the weapon bays have to be of certain size...remember F-22's can't use the full arsenals, and even the AMRAAM have to develop a version that can fit inside?
Still, the change of attitude by Kanwa is rather...unexpected, they're known to be China-bashing, after all.
- Status